Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but 
Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic	 
Framework (22-AUG-07, GAO-07-403).				 
                                                                 
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.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-403 					        
    ACCNO:   A74976						        
  TITLE:     Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts    
Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive	 
Strategic Framework						 
     DATE:   08/22/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Building codes					 
	     Disaster planning					 
	     Earthquakes					 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Flood insurance					 
	     Hurricanes 					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Local governments					 
	     Losses						 
	     Natural disasters					 
	     Population growth					 
	     Property						 
	     Risk assessment					 
	     Risk management					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Tornadoes						 
	     Wildfires						 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-403

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]The United States Is at Risk from a Number of Natural Hazard

          * [4]Flooding Is the Most Widespread Hazard in the United States,
          * [5]Population Trends and Climate Change Are Increasing the Nati

     * [6]Communities' Planning and Mitigation Activities Can Help Red

          * [7]Planning Efforts Can Help Reduce Losses from Natural Hazards
          * [8]Building Codes and Design Standards Can Lead to More Durable
          * [9]Hazard Control Structures and Natural Protective Features Ca

     * [10]While Various Approaches Are Used to Encourage Natural Hazar

          * [11]Financial and Other Assistance Can Help Encourage Some Commu
          * [12]Insurance Premium Discounts Can Encourage Some Communities a
          * [13]Public Education and Outreach Can Help Raise Awareness of Na
          * [14]Conflicting Interests Can Impede Local Mitigation Efforts
          * [15]Costs Concerns May Hinder Mitigation Efforts
          * [16]Lack of Rigorous Building Code Enforcement Impedes Hazard Mi
          * [17]Limited Public Awareness Constrains Mitigation Activities

     * [18]A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a

          * [19]Some Collaboration Exists among Mitigation Stakeholders
          * [20]The Current Approach to Collaboration on Natural Hazard Miti

     * [21]Conclusions
     * [22]Recommendation for Executive Action
     * [23]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [24]GAO Contact
     * [25]Staff Acknowledgments

          * [26]Order by Mail or Phone

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

August 2007

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION

Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a
Comprehensive Strategic Framework

GAO-07-403

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 7
The United States Is at Risk from a Number of Natural Hazards, and Our
Vulnerability Is Increasing 11
Communities' Planning and Mitigation Activities Can Help Reduce the Risk
of Losses from Natural Hazards 26
While Various Approaches Are Used to Encourage Natural Hazard Mitigation,
Significant Challenges Remain 35
A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a Comprehensive
Strategic Framework for National Natural Hazard Mitigation Goals 47
Conclusions 54
Recommendation for Executive Action 55
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 56
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 59
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 64
Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior 67
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 69

Table

Table 1: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs 8

Figures

Figure 1: Number of Major Flood Disaster Declarations by County, 1980-2005
13
Figure 2: Number of Hurricanes by County, 1980-2005 15
Figure 3: Counties That Face Medium to High Seismic Risk 17
Figure 4: Number of Wildland Fires over 1,000 Acres by County, 1980-2005
19
Figure 5: Number of Severe Tornadoes by County, 1980-2004 21
Figure 6: Counties That Face Moderate to High Landslide Risk 23
Figure 7: Effect of a 2004 Hurricane on Structures Built to Different
Versions of Building Codes 31
Figure 8: Hurricane Straps in a Home under Construction 32
Figure 9: Before and after Photos of a Home with a Defensible Space
against Wildland Fire 33

Abbreviations

BCEGS(TM) Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule
CEA California Earthquake Authority
CRS Community Rating System
DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Program
HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
RFC Repetitive Flood Claims Program
SRL Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program
USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
wish to reproduce this material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

August 22, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
Ranking Member
Committee on Financial Services
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Bachus:

The hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 devastated portions of the United
States resulting in extensive loss of life and damage to property.
Hurricane Katrina alone caused over 1,500 deaths and an estimated $81
billion in property damages.^1 Obligations from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) disaster relief fund in fiscal year 2004 and
2005 totaled over $43 billion--more than the approximately $37 billion
spent during the previous 10 years. Experts predict that future natural
hazard events in the United States could be even more damaging and costly.
For example, one expert on Atlantic hurricanes predicts a category 3
hurricane hitting the New York City area could produce a storm surge of
over 20 feet in some areas, flood local airports and lower Manhattan, and
result in extensive economic disruption. Similarly, experts have estimated
that an earthquake in San Francisco of the same magnitude as the 1906
earthquake could cause as many as 3,400 deaths, displace up to 250,000
households, and cause as much as $120 billion in property damage.

The losses to life and property from past natural hazard events and the
potential for similar or worse events in the future show the importance of
taking steps to reduce the impact such events can have on the nation.
Hazard mitigation--actions taken before or after a natural hazard event to
reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to life and property from natural
hazards--can save lives and reduce property damage, potentially reducing
the economic and social costs of natural hazard events. The potential for
large-scale damage, particularly in densely populated and economically
important areas, makes hazard mitigation an important national issue. A
recent cost-benefit analysis of a sample of hazard mitigation grants
awarded by FEMA--the federal agency that provides leadership in mitigating
the effects of natural hazards--found that every $1 spent on mitigation
saved society an average of $4.^2

^1Preliminary estimate as reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in August 2006. Estimate is in 2006 dollars.

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.

^2National Institute of Building Sciences, The Multihazard Mitigation
Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess
the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities (Washington, D.C.: 2005).

We conducted our work in Baltimore, Maryland; Berkeley, Napa, San
Francisco, and Sacramento, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Boulder,
Denver, Golden, and Fort Collins, Colorado; Deerfield Beach, Miami, Tampa,
and West Palm Beach, Florida; Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma; and
Washington, D.C., between March 2006 and June 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

Natural hazards present risks to life and property throughout the United
States, and population trends are increasing the nation's vulnerability to
these risks, while climate change is expected to change the nature of some
of the risks themselves. Flooding is the most common and destructive
natural hazard facing the nation and causes billions of dollars in losses
each year. Hurricanes, earthquakes, wildland fires, tornadoes, and
landslides are less widespread but also pose significant risks to property
and residents in susceptible areas. For example, our analysis of NOAA data
showed that hurricanes typically impact the Atlantic and Gulf Coast states
and occasionally Hawaii. Additionally, according to the USGS, earthquakes
pose significant risks to states on the West Coast and Alaska as well as
portions of the central United States. We also found that most large
wildland fires--which increasingly threaten structures as development
continues to expand in or near wildlands--occur in the western United
States, although smaller fires, which can be equally as damaging as large
fires, also occur in the eastern and southern regions of the country.
Other natural hazards, such as tsunamis and volcanic eruptions also
present risks to portions of the United States. Furthermore, some natural
hazard events can cause another hazard event to occur. For example, an
earthquake can produce a tsunami or may cause levees to fail and create
flooding. Finally, population trends and climate change are potentially
increasing the vulnerability of the nation to losses resulting from
natural hazards. For example, NOAA estimates that coastal areas, in
particular, are among the most rapidly growing areas in the country; and
as we have previously reported, climate change may increase these hazard
risks by altering the frequency and severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and
wildland fires.^3

A variety of mitigation activities exist that can reduce the risk of
losses from natural hazards. These activities, which are mostly
implemented at the state and local level, include hazard mitigation
planning; the adoption and enforcement of more rigorous building codes;
and the use of hazard control structures such as levees, dams, and
floodwalls or natural protective features such as wetlands and dunes.
Hazard mitigation planning can help communities identify the natural
hazards to which they are susceptible and develop a strategy for reducing
their vulnerability. Many of the strategies identified in hazard
mitigation plans are implemented through land-use planning tools and
development regulations that can prevent or limit development in
hazard-prone areas. Building codes play an important role in making
structures more resistant to the effects of natural hazards. The amount of
protection building codes provide depends on the provisions contained in
the code that address communities' natural hazard risks and the extent to
which communities adopt and enforce these provisions. When development
occurs in hazard-prone areas, buildings can be designed or retrofitted
(modified to improve resistance to hazards) to increase their chances of
surviving known perils. For example, homes built in areas susceptible to
wildland fires can incorporate landscape techniques, such as maintaining
an open area around the structure's perimeter that limits the amount of
vegetation and other flammable objects. Hazard control structures can help
protect areas that are susceptible to flooding. For example, the city of
Napa, California, is undertaking a large flood protection project that
includes levees and floodwalls to reduce the impact of flooding on the
region.

Major impediments exist to the implementation of natural hazard mitigation
activities, however, some methods are available to help encourage the
undertaking of these activities. Mitigation activities are often
constrained by conflicting local interests, cost concerns, and a lack of
public awareness of the risks of natural hazards and the importance of
mitigation. Communities' economic interests can often conflict with
long-term hazard mitigation goals. For example, communities' desire for
economic growth may allow development to occur in hazard-prone areas
(e.g., along the coast or in floodplains). Additionally, the cost to
communities to implement and maintain hazard mitigation policies as well
as the cost to property owners to make their structures hazard resistant
also limits the amount of hazard mitigation activities that occur. The
lack of public awareness about natural hazards and risks also constrains
efforts to implement new mitigation activities. Efforts to overcome these
impediments include, public education and outreach, financial and other
types of assistance, and insurance discounts. An example of public
education is the Firewise Communities program, which conducts educational
activities for local policy makers, home owners, and developers about
wildland fire risks and methods to reduce these risks. Additionally,
financial assistance is provided by federal, state, and local agencies to
promote mitigation activities. For example, at the federal level, FEMA
offers assistance to states and local communities through natural hazard
mitigation grant programs. At the local level, communities can use
economic incentives such as tax benefits to encourage mitigation
activities. Finally, insurance discounts can also encourage communities
and individuals to undertake mitigation measures.

^3GAO, Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in
Coming Decades are Potentially Significant, [27]GAO-07-285 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 16, 2007).

The approach currently used for natural hazard mitigation efforts, while
collaborative, tends to occur on a hazard-specific basis, typically after
a disaster, or through informal methods and does not provide a
comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation. Successful mitigation
efforts require collaboration among federal, state, and local government
agencies, and a variety of nongovernmental entities, because mitigation
activities are implemented at the state and local level. We identified a
number of collaborative methods for mitigation, including developing
national mitigation strategies or interagency programs dedicated to
reducing losses from particular natural hazards. For example, several
federal agencies have developed a national strategy for reducing the risks
that wildland fires pose to communities, which identifies the stakeholders
responsible for completing tasks to accomplish this goal. Agency officials
said that in addition they collaborate on mitigation efforts through a
variety of informal mechanisms such as teleconferences and discussions on
specific projects or initiatives. The federal government also collaborates
on mitigation activities through partnerships with state and local
governments and other nongovernmental entities to develop broad community
support for mitigation activities. However, these efforts are fragmented
and do not provide a comprehensive national strategic framework for
mitigation. In the past, FEMA developed a comprehensive strategic
framework through the creation of the National Mitigation Strategy that
sought to strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and the
private sector.^4 Various provisions of federal laws stress the importance
of national efforts in natural hazard mitigation and highlight FEMA's
leadership role in such efforts. The absence of a comprehensive framework
makes it difficult to ensure that the federal government is effectively
identifying hazard risks and that those undertaking mitigation efforts are
working collectively. Further, without such a framework federal efforts
may not be leveraging resources and developing synergies across the
various hazard-specific mitigation efforts to accomplish common national
natural hazard mitigation goals.

To more effectively identify natural hazard risks, minimize the effects of
hazards before they occur, and reduce overall future hazard losses to the
nation, we recommended that the Administrator of FEMA, in consultation
with other appropriate federal agencies, develop and maintain a national
comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation that incorporates both
pre- and postdisaster mitigation efforts. The framework should include
items such as common mitigation goals; performance measures and reporting
requirements; the role of specific activities in the overall framework;
and the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local agencies,
and nongovernmental stakeholders.

We requested comments from FEMA, NOAA, USGS, the Corps of Engineers, and
the Forest Service. The Department of Homeland Security, which provided
written comments on behalf of FEMA, generally agreed with our conclusions
and recommendation (see app. II). FEMA's comments supported setting a
national comprehensive strategic framework and common mitigation goals.
But the letter added that the agency believed that it was inappropriate
for FEMA to dictate mitigation decisions to the local level and thus
disagreed with setting performance measures and reporting requirements.
Mitigation activities could benefit from performance measures to ensure
that crosscutting agency goals are consistent and that program efforts are
mutually reinforcing. With such practices in place, FEMA, in consultation
with other federal agencies, could more effectively partner with and
develop buy-in from state and local agencies and nongovernmental
stakeholders. Trend analysis and progress reporting toward goals, both of
which FEMA cited as more appropriate, would be consistent with our
recommendation and could be effective in measuring the success of a
comprehensive strategic mitigation framework.

^4FEMA, National Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for Building Safer
Communities (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

The Department of the Interior, which provided written comments on behalf
of USGS, also agreed with the recommendation and stressed the importance
of a strategy being built collectively by FEMA in partnership with other
federal agencies. We have reprinted the Department of the Interior's
written comments in appendix III, and we discuss them in greater detail
near the end of this letter. The Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and
NOAA did not provide written comments. However, they generally agreed with
the report but did not comment on the recommendation.

Background

The rising costs of natural hazard events have led many to recognize the
benefits of hazard mitigation. Obligations from FEMA's disaster relief
fund grew from $2.8 billion in 1992 to $34.4 billion in 2005 as a result
of a series of unusually large events and the increasing federal role in
assisting communities and individuals affected by disasters. Given these
increasing costs, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA
2000) to establish a national hazard mitigation program to (1) reduce the
loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and
resulting disaster assistance costs from natural hazard events and (2)
provide a source of predisaster mitigation funding that would assist
states and local governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation
measures.^5 It also established several initiatives designed to improve
state and local hazard mitigation planning--the process these governments
use to identify risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural hazards
and to develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property in
future hazard events.

FEMA, within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for
leading the country's efforts to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and
recover from disasters. In recent years, FEMA has made hazard mitigation a
primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term effects of natural
hazards. For example, FEMA provides guidance for state and local
governments to use in developing their hazard mitigation plans, reviews
and approves these plans, and administers a number of hazard mitigation
grant programs to provide funds to state and local governments to
undertake mitigation activities. Table 1 describes FEMA's hazard
mitigation grant programs and their fiscal year 2006 funding levels.

^5Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-390, 114 Stat. 1552
(codified at various sections of title 42 of the U.S. Code).

Table 1: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs

                                                                  Fiscal year 
                                                                 2006 funding 
Grant program             Description                           (millions) 
Hazard Mitigation Grant   Provides funds to communities to    Approx. $581 
Program (HMGP)            reduce or permanently eliminate                  
                             future risk to lives and property                
                             from natural hazards. HMGP funds                 
                             projects in accordance with                      
                             priorities identified in state,                  
                             tribal, or local hazard mitigation               
                             plans and enables mitigation                     
                             measures to be implemented during                
                             recovery from a disaster.                        
Pre-Disaster Mitigation   Provides funds to communities for            $50 
Program (PDM)             hazard mitigation planning and the               
                             implementation of mitigation                     
                             projects prior to a disaster event.              
                             Funding these plans and projects                 
                             reduces overall risks to life and                
                             property and the future cost of                  
                             recovering from a disaster event.                
Flood Mitigation          Provides funds to communities to             $28 
Assistance Program (FMA)  implement cost-effective measures                
                             that reduce or eliminate the                     
                             long-term risk of flood damage to                
                             buildings, manufactured homes, and               
                             other structures insured under the               
                             National Flood Insurance Program                 
                             (NFIP).                                          
Repetitive Flood Claims   Provides funds to reduce or                  $10 
Program (RFC)             eliminate the long-term risk of                  
                             flood damage to structures insured               
                             under the NFIP that have had one or              
                             more claim payment(s) for flood                  
                             damages. Eligibility is limited to               
                             those communities that cannot meet               
                             the requirements of the FMA program              
                             for various reasons.                             
Severe Repetitive Loss    Provides funds to reduce or                  $40 
Pilot Program (SRL)       eliminate the long-term risk of                  
                             flood damage to severe repetitive                
                             loss residential properties that                 
                             are insured under the NFIP. Severe               
                             repetitive loss properties are                   
                             residential properties that have                 
                             incurred flood losses that resulted              
                             in either (1) four or more flood                 
                             insurance claims payments that each              
                             exceeded $5,000, with at least two               
                             of the payments occurring within a               
                             10-year period or (2) two or more                
                             flood insurance claims payments                  
                             that cumulatively exceed the value               
                             of the property.                                 

Source: FEMA.

Note: All grant program funding represents appropriations levels, with the
exception of HMGP funding, which represents obligated levels.

FEMA also manages the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which was
established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.^6 The NFIP
enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood
insurance as protection against flood losses.^7 When a community chooses
to join the NFIP, it must adopt and enforce the minimum floodplain
management regulations established by the program, which are designed to
reduce future flood damages. Currently, over 20,300 communities
participate in the NFIP. According to FEMA, it is estimated that $1.2
billion in flood losses are avoided annually because of community
implementation of the floodplain management requirements of NFIP. In
addition to providing flood insurance and helping to reduce flood damages
through floodplain management regulations, the NFIP identifies and maps
the nation's floodplains. These maps help communities identify their flood
risks and are used in implementing floodplain management regulations.

^6The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-448, title
XIII, 82 Stat. 572 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. SS 4001 et seq.).

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:

           o 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.

           o 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.

^7Our use of the term "community" throughout this report refers to FEMA's
definition of "community" for the NFIP. FEMA's definition includes, among
others, any state or area or political subdivision thereof, or any Indian
tribe or authorized tribal organization, which has authority to adopt and
enforce floodplain management regulations for the areas within its
jurisdiction. See 44 C.F.R. S 59.1 (2006). In most cases, a community is
an incorporated city, town, township, borough, or village, or an
unincorporated area of a county or parish.

           o 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.

           o 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.^8
           These activities include (1) defining and articulating a common
           outcome; (2) establishing mutually reinforcing or joint
           strategies; (3) identifying and addressing needs by leveraging
           resources; (4) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; (5)
           establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means of
           operating across agency boundaries; (6) developing mechanisms to
           monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (7) reinforcing agency
           accountability for collaborative efforts; and (8) reinforcing
           individual accountability for collaborative efforts.

^8We defined "collaboration" broadly to include interagency activities
that others have previously defined as cooperation, coordination,
integration, or networking. For this report, we used this definition of
"collaboration" to describe coordination among federal agencies as well as
between federal agencies and nonfederal stakeholders. See GAO
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [28]GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 21, 2005).

           The United States Is at Risk from a Number of Natural Hazards,
			  and Our Vulnerability Is Increasing

           Flooding is the most common and destructive hazard facing the
           nation, but earthquakes, hurricanes, wildland fires, tornadoes,
           and landslides are also significant risks in certain regions. For
           example, while floods are potential hazards in most parts of the
           country, hurricanes are most likely to occur on the Atlantic and
           Gulf Coasts, and large wildland fires have mostly affected the
           western United States. The risks caused by natural hazards are
           exacerbated by the fact that one natural hazard can lead to
           another. Earthquakes, for instance, can cause tsunamis,
           landslides, and flooding due to levee failures. In recent years,
           however, the risk posed by natural hazards has been increasing,
           fueled by factors that include population trends and the potential
           effects of climate change. Many hazard-prone regions are
           experiencing significant population growth, among them the coast
           of Florida--the most hurricane-prone state in the country--where
           the population increased by 75 percent between 1980 and 2003.
           Finally, climate change is potentially increasing the risks faced
           by some areas by altering the frequency and severity of
           hurricanes, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, and wildland fires,
           and other weather-related events.
			  
           Flooding Is the Most Widespread Hazard in the United States, but
			  Other Hazards Affect Specific Regions

           Several natural hazards such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and
           wildland fires pose risks to certain areas of the United States.
           Floods, however, are the most common and destructive hazard in the
           United States, and all states are likely to experience some degree
           of flooding. There are many different kinds of floods, including,
           regional floods, flash floods, floods resulting from dam and levee
           failures, and storm surge floods. Floods can result in the loss of
           lives, extensive damage to property and agriculture, and
           large-scale disruptions to business and infrastructure, such as
           transportation and water and sewer services. According to our
           analysis of FEMA data, counties in the Gulf Coast states
           experienced the greatest concentration of major flood disaster
           declarations from 1980 through 2005 (fig. 1).^9 Additionally,
           because flooding is so widespread, it presents risks to a large
           segment of the population. For example, we found that between 1980
           and 2005, approximately 97 percent of the U.S. population lived in
           a county that experienced at least one declared flood disaster;
           about 93 percent lived in counties that had experienced two or
           more flood disaster declarations; and 45 percent lived in counties
           that had experienced six or more flood disaster declarations.^10
           NOAA estimates that floods cause about 140 deaths each year, and
           the Corps of Engineers estimates floods cost $6 billion in average
           annual losses. Economic losses continue to rise, in part, due to
           increased urbanization and coastal development.
			  
^9Following a disaster, and upon the request of a state governor, the
President may issue a major disaster declaration that triggers a range of
assistance from federal agencies. See 42 U.S.C. S 5170.

^10We used Census 2000 data as our population estimates for the number of
people living in areas that experienced a natural hazard event from 1980
through 2005 or are at risk from earthquakes and landslides. The Census
Bureau defines "county" and "equivalent entity" as the primary legal
subdivision of most states. In Louisiana, these subdivisions are known as
parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the county equivalents are
boroughs, a legal subdivision, and census areas, a statistical
subdivision. Four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada and Virginia) have
one or more cities that are independent of any county and thus constitute
primary subdivisions of their states. The District of Columbia has no
primary divisions, and the entire area is considered equivalent to a
county for statistical purposes. In Puerto Rico, municipios are treated as
county equivalents.

Figure 1: Number of Major Flood Disaster Declarations by County, 1980-2005

Note: Figure represents areas where past flooding disasters have occurred.
It may not reflect future flooding risks, as mitigation activities may
have occurred in some areas.

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.^11 Additionally, we found that approximately 29 percent of the
U.S. population lived in a county that experienced at least one hurricane
from 1980 through 2005. During this same time, counties in eight
states--Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Texas, and Virginia--experienced five or more hurricanes (fig.
2). Before 2005, Hurricane Andrew, which occurred in 1992, was the single
most costly hurricane in terms of private insurer losses, causing $22.3
billion in losses (in 2006 dollars).^12 Comparatively, Hurricane Katrina
caused $39.3 billion in private insurer losses (in 2006 dollars).^13

^11We did not analyze data for U.S. territories, but they are also subject
to hurricanes.

^12Estimates were adjusted using the calendar year Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers, with 2006 as the base year.

^13Estimate as of February 2006. Private insurer loss estimates for
Hurricane Katrina are likely to change as the extent of losses becomes
better known.

Figure 2: Number of Hurricanes by County, 1980-2005

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.

Figure 3: Counties That Face Medium to High Seismic Risk

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.^14

^14GAO, Wildland Fire Suppression: Lack of Clear Guidance Raises Concerns
about Cost Sharing between Federal and Nonfederal Entities, [29]GAO-06-570
(Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2006).

Figure 4: Number of Wildland Fires over 1,000 Acres by County, 1980-2005

Note: Figure represents areas where past wildland fires have occurred. It
may not reflect future wildland fire risks, as mitigation activities may
have occurred in some areas.

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.^15 "Tornado Alley," an area covering a stretch of land from
central Texas to northern Iowa and from central Kansas and Nebraska to
western Ohio, has the highest tornado activity in the nation (fig. 5).
Another significant zone of tornado frequency is the central southeast
United States, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee.
From 1980 through 2004, five states--Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma,
and Texas--each had one county that experienced five or more severe
tornadoes. Tornadoes pose a significant risk to life, causing an average
of 80 deaths and over 1,500 injuries a year. Tornadoes can also be costly.
For example, NOAA estimates that approximately once per decade, a
devastating tornado in the United States has caused $1 billion or more in
damages.

^15For the purposes of this report, we classified tornadoes with wind
speeds greater than 158 miles per hour as severe tornadoes. This analysis
was based on tornadoes using the Fujita (F) scale where winds of 158 miles
per hour begin the category for severe tornadoes (F3). As of February 1,
2007, NOAA began using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) scale for tornado ratings
and its category for severe tornadoes (F3) begins with a wind speed of 136
miles per hour.

Figure 5: Number of Severe Tornadoes by County, 1980-2004

Note: Figure represents areas where past tornadoes have occurred. It may
not reflect future tornado risks.

Landslides are the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a
slope and can range from a rapidly moving rock avalanche to a more slowly
moving earth slide and ground failure. The greatest landslide damage
occurs in the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains, as well as the Pacific
Coast regions, but USGS data show that all 50 states can experience
landslides and other ground-failure problems (fig. 6). We found that from
1980 through 2005, approximately 66 percent of the U.S. population lived
in an area where the landslide risk was moderate to high. Landslides can
have a significant adverse effect on infrastructure and threaten
transportation corridors, fuel and energy conduits, and communications
linkages. USGS estimates that landslides cause, on average, $3.5 billion
in damage repair and between 25 and 50 deaths a year.

Figure 6: Counties That Face Moderate to High Landslide Risk

Note: Figure represents areas where past landslides have occurred. It may
not reflect future landslide risks.

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.^16 Although less frequent than other hazards in
the United States, tsunamis are a significant natural hazard with great
destructive potential. For example a 1964 Alaska tsunami led to 110
deaths, some as far away as Crescent City, California. In addition,
according to USGS, in the past few hundred years volcanoes have erupted in
Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.^17 Since 1980, 45
eruptions and 15 cases of notable volcanic unrest have occurred at 33 U.S.
volcanoes.

^16Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also face significant tsunami risk.

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.^18 Earthquakes can cause
tsunamis, landslides, and flooding (e.g., due to levee failures). For
example, the devastating December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was triggered
by an earthquake. In addition, drought can contribute to wildland fires,
which can induce other hazards, including floods and landslides. The
degradation of soil in an area burned by a wildland fire prevents
vegetation from growing back, including features that would hold the soil
in place during heavy rains. Consequently, landslides are more likely to
occur in burned areas.

Population Trends and Climate Change Are Increasing the Nation's Vulnerability

Population growth in hazard-prone areas and the resulting increase in
development in these areas are increasing the vulnerability of the nation
to losses resulting from natural hazards. According to a study conducted
by NOAA, coastal areas are among the most rapidly growing and developed
areas in the nation, with a large percentage of the U.S. population living
in coastal counties.^19 These areas are susceptible to hurricanes,
earthquakes, flooding, and other natural hazards. For example, the coastal
population in Florida grew by 7.1 million people, a 75 percent increase,
from 1980 to 2003. According to the study, Florida led all coastal states
in issuing building permits for single- and multifamily housing units in
coastal counties from 1999 to 2003.

^17Some of the most active U.S. volcanic regions also include Pacific
territories, especially the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands.

^18Fuel refers to the dead and living materials in a natural environment
that will burn. This can include dead and living grasses, twigs, branches,
and trees.

^19U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Population Trends Along the Coastal
United States: 1980-2008, September 2004.

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.^20 Other areas prone to natural
hazards are also experiencing significant population growth and
development. For example, many of the fastest-growing areas in the United
States are in the wildland-urban interface, and development in these areas
increases the threat of wildland fires. Experts estimate that between 1990
and 2000, 60 percent of all new housing units in the United States were
built in the wildland-urban interface, and that in by 2000 about 38
percent of housing units overall were located in these areas.
Additionally, urban growth in tornado-prone areas, which in many cases
were previously sparsely populated, is increasing the chances that a
tornado will hit a heavily developed area. For example, in February 2007,
a series of tornadoes damaged over 1,500 homes in 4 central Florida
counties, 2 of which have been among the 100 fastest-growing counties in
the nation in recent years.

Further, as we have previously reported, key scientific assessments
indicate that climate change is expected to alter the frequency or
severity of weather-related natural hazards themselves, increasing the
nation's vulnerability to such hazards.^21 Global temperatures have
increased in the last 100 years and are projected to continue to rise over
the next century. Scientific assessments suggest that the potential
effects of climate change on weather-related events could be significant.
For example, increasing temperatures may impact communities by altering
the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms,
and wildland fires. For example, Forest Service officials told us that
effects of climate change, such as drought, can increase the risk of
wildland fires, especially east of the Mississippi River because of the
high density of vegetation and population. We also reported that experts
found that global sea levels rose several centimeters during the past
century, potentially increasing the magnitude of hurricane storm surges in
some areas. Rising sea levels can also increase coastal inundation and
erosion in low-lying areas, resulting in property losses.

^20E.H. Field, H.A. Seligson, N. Gupta, V. Gupta, T.H. Jordan, and K.W.
Campbell, Loss Estimates for a Puente Hills Blind-Thrust Earthquake in Los
Angeles, California, Earthquake Spectra, vol. 21, no. 2, (2005) pp.,
329-338.

^21 [30]GAO-07-285 .

Communities' Planning and Mitigation Activities Can Help Reduce the Risk of
Losses from Natural Hazards

Hazard mitigation planning activities help communities identify risks from
natural hazards and develop mitigation strategies to reduce these risks.
The strategies can be implemented through land-use planning tools such as
the acquisition of hazard-prone land and development regulations that
provide a way to reduce vulnerability over the long term. Building codes
and design standards also can be used to help reduce losses from natural
hazards by creating structures that are better able to withstand a hazard
event. State and local building codes can be designed to reflect
communities' hazard risks and can specify more rigorous requirements to
address these hazards. Additionally, design, construction, and landscaping
features can be included in structures built in hazard-prone areas. For
example, construction features such as hurricane straps, which provide
extra support in connecting the roof to a building, can help reduce
damages during hurricanes. Finally, hazard control structures such as
levees, dams, and floodwalls can help protect existing at-risk
developments from flood losses.

Planning Efforts Can Help Reduce Losses from Natural Hazards

The best time for communities to take steps to address their natural
hazard risks is before a disaster occurs. Hazard mitigation planning,
which occurs at the state and local level, helps communities assess their
natural hazards risks and develop mitigation strategies. The process
typically involves a range of stakeholders, including neighborhood and
environmental groups, local businesses, and others. The involvement of
stakeholders is an important component to the planning process because it
assists in identifying the most vulnerable populations and facilities in
the community and in creating community support to implement the plan. The
assessment can include gathering information on the types, locations, and
potential extent of natural hazards and the types and numbers of
buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in hazard
areas. Finally, based on a community's assessment of its risks,
stakeholders can identify mitigation goals and objectives.

As a condition for receiving hazard mitigation assistance, states and
local communities must develop hazard mitigation plans and have FEMA
approve them.^22 According to FEMA, all 50 states have approved plans, and
approximately 60 percent of the U.S population lives in communities with
approved local mitigation plans. One county emergency management official
with whom we spoke said that a local mitigation plan is an important
component of a community's mitigation program. He noted that developing
such a plan requires examining other local plans (e.g., community
development and capital improvement plans) to ensure that mitigation goals
and objectives are consistent with other community goals. Incorporating
elements of communities' hazard mitigation plans into community
development plans can facilitate the implementation of hazard mitigation
goals. A land-use planning expert told us that incorporating mitigation
plans into other long-term strategies not only helps with implementation
but also can prevent long-term mitigation objectives from being overlooked
when communities develop other short-term objectives. Additionally, a
state emergency management department official told us that local
mitigation plans are particularly important because they establish a
consistent long-term hazard mitigation approach for local governments to
take that survives the high staff turnover rates local governments often
face.

Communities' development and other plans can be implemented through
land-use planning tools and development regulations that provide a way to
reduce vulnerability to natural hazards over the long-term. For example,
communities can acquire hazard-prone land and retain it as open space in
order to limit development in the most at-risk areas, particularly in
floodplains and coastal zones. Acquiring flood-prone properties
permanently eliminates losses from properties that flood repeatedly.
Communities can also use zoning to designate how land will be used,
control such features as building density and lot sizes, and restrict
building in hazardous areas through the use of setbacks--minimum distances
between development and hazardous areas. For example, coastal zone
management regulations can impose setbacks to control construction near
the coast. Another method of limiting development in hazard-prone areas is
the process of subdivision that divides a large lot into any number of
smaller lots as a means of facilitating development. "Clustering," for
instance, allows developers to build the same number of units on their
land by placing more buildings on the less hazardous areas and limiting
development in the more hazardous areas.

^22Hazard mitigation assistance includes FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program funding. Although
local communities are required to have an approved hazard mitigation plan
to receive this funding, in extraordinary circumstances HMGP funds can be
awarded to communities that agree to develop a hazard mitigation plan
within 12 months of receiving the project grant.

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:

           o The California Department of Transportation has rebuilt or
           retrofitted most of the major roadway bridges in the San Francisco
           Bay area.

           o The Bay Area Rapid Transit system is currently undergoing a
           major seismic retrofit of its entire system.

           o Seismic improvements have also been made for gas, electric, and
           water systems.
			  
			  Building Codes and Design Standards Can Lead to More Durable
			  Structures That Provide Protection from Natural Hazards

           Building codes, the minimum acceptable standards that are used to
           regulate the design and construction of the built environment,
           play an important role in improving the resilience of structures
           to natural hazards. Because states and localities have the
           authority to adopt building codes, these codes vary throughout the
           country.^23 Some states choose to adopt statewide building codes
           that can help ensure a minimum level of building quality. However,
           statewide building codes do not necessarily apply to all
           structures--for example, they may apply only to state-owned
           buildings, schools, or other public buildings. In Iowa, statewide
           building codes apply only to structures built with state funds or
           owned or leased by the state. Additionally, states may give local
           communities the right to opt out of a statewide code and adopt a
           local building code.

           Many states and localities base their codes on model building
           codes that are developed on a national level by groups made up of
           building industry and other professionals. These codes reflect a
           consensus among building experts on the appropriate level of
           protection that codes should provide.^24 Model codes incorporate
           disaster-resistant standards for hazards such as wind,
           earthquakes, floods, and wildland fires and are specific to the
           type of structure being built (e.g., new commercial and
           residential buildings, existing buildings that undergo renovation
           or alteration, and structures built in wildland-urban interface
           areas). As of January 2007, the majority of states had adopted
           some version of a model building code for commercial and
           residential structures. Additionally, some local jurisdictions
           within states that have not adopted a statewide model code have
           adopted model codes on their own. However, according to an
           insurance services company that assesses the effectiveness of
           communities' building code enforcement throughout the country,
           there are about 5,000 communities throughout the United States
           that have not adopted building codes.^25

^23The exception is factory-built manufactured homes that are transported
to sites for installation and are subject to federal construction and
safety standards established by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development pursuant to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and
Safety Standards Act of 1974, title VI of Pub. L. 93-383, 88 Stat. 633,
700 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. SS 5401 et seq.). See 24 C.F.R. pt.
3280 (2006). However, each state may establish and enforce standards for
the stabilizing and support systems of manufactured homes and for the
foundations on which manufactured homes are installed, as long as such
standards are consistent with Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations.

^24Two organizations currently develop model building codes in the United
States. They are the International Code Council, which develops various
model codes referred to as the International Codes, and the National Fire
Protection Administration (NFPA), which develops the NFPA 5000 Building
Construction and Safety Code.

^25This company does not operate in five states. Accordingly, this
estimate of the number of communities without building codes represents
only the 45 states in which it operates.

           Model building codes can be modified by state and local
           authorities to reflect local hazard risks and can require more
           rigorous requirements to address these hazards. For example, in
           the hurricane-prone state of Florida, the Florida Building Code
           requires that structures built in areas vulnerable to high winds
           have windows and glass doors that are designed to withstand the
           impact of wind-borne debris or mandates the use of
           shatter-resistant glass or shutters. The California Building Code
           incorporates, among other things, specific seismic requirements to
           make structures more resilient to earthquakes and requirements for
           fire-resistant roofing, windows, and building exteriors for
           structures in wildland-urban interface areas.

           Building officials, mitigation experts, and industry groups all
           commented that enforcing building codes is critical in order to
           effectively mitigate natural hazard losses. Studies revealed that
           damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake would have been reduced
           if the seismic provisions of building codes had been properly
           enforced. Reports following Hurricane Andrew in 1992 also found
           that inadequate code enforcement resulted in significant losses
           from the hurricane. Enforcement of building codes generally occurs
           at the local building department level and ensures that builders
           comply with the standards specified in the codes so that
           structures provide the level of protection for which they were
           designed. Enforcement includes activities such as approving
           permits for new structures or structures undergoing renovation,
           reviewing construction plans for compliance with the building
           code, and inspecting construction sites to ensure that
           construction is proceeding according to the reviewed plan.

           When a community adopts and enforces revised building codes
           designed to improve structural integrity, losses from natural
           hazard events can be reduced. State and local building code and
           other local government officials told us that structures built to
           newer building code standards performed better during natural
           hazard events than those built to earlier standards. For example,
           building code officials in California explained that when
           reviewing the damage from the Northridge Earthquake, they found
           that older buildings suffered substantially more damage than newer
           buildings built using seismic mitigation measures. Figure 7 shows
           the damage resulting from Hurricane Charley in 2004 to two
           structures in Florida that are located across the street from one
           another. The structure on the left, which is an older building,
           was completely destroyed, while the structure on the right, whose
           construction was subject to a recent building code, performed well
           during the storm.

Figure 7: Effect of a 2004 Hurricane on Structures Built to Different
Versions of Building Codes

Specific construction, design, and landscaping features can be
incorporated into structures built in hazard-prone areas to improve their
ability to withstand a natural hazard event. For example, specific
construction features such as hurricane straps, which provide extra
support in connecting the roof to a building, in areas subject to
hurricane-level winds, can help reduce damages during hurricanes (fig. 8).

Figure 8: Hurricane Straps in a Home under Construction

For homes built in wildland-urban interface areas, landscaping techniques
can be applied around the perimeter of a structure. By managing the
vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable materials within 30 to
100 feet of a structure, property owners and developers can create a
defensible space that substantially reduces the likelihood that a wildland
fire will damage or destroy the structure (fig. 9).

Figure 9: Before and after Photos of a Home with a Defensible Space
against Wildland Fire

Existing structures can also be made more resistant to natural hazards
through retrofitting, or modifying a structure to improve its resistance
to hazards. While retrofitting may not bring a structure up to the most
recent building code standards, it will help existing structures better
withstand natural hazard events. Retrofitting techniques exist for a
number of natural hazards, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and
wildland fires. For example, garage doors are vulnerable to hurricane
winds because of their size and the strength of the materials used to
construct them. If a garage door fails during a storm, it can lead to more
severe damages to a home, especially to the roof. However, these doors can
be reinforced with horizontal or vertical bracing. Additionally, homes can
be retrofitted by anchoring the structure to its foundation, reducing the
possibility that the house will move off its foundation during an
earthquake or hurricane.

Hazard Control Structures and Natural Protective Features Can Protect At-Risk
Areas

Hazard control structures such as levees, dams, and floodwalls provide
protection in flood-prone areas and can reduce associated losses. These
structures are typically used to protect existing at-risk developments,
such as buildings located in floodplains, and provide a certain level of
flood protection. They may not provide absolute flood protection, however,
because a flood could exceed the intended level of protection, as
Hurricane Katrina's storm surge did, allowing floodwater to breach the
levees and floodwalls in New Orleans. However, flood control structures
can prevent extensive damage in many cases. For example, the city of

Napa developed a flood protection project that incorporates several flood
mitigation activities and a combination of hazard control structures,
including levees, floodwalls, and other structures, to achieve a 100-year
flood protection level.^26 The project is expected to save $26 million
annually in flood damage costs when it is completed. According to a city
of Napa official, had the project been completed it would have prevented
all flood damage that occurred from the flood on New Year's Eve in 2005.

Protecting, restoring, and enhancing natural protective features such as
floodplains, wetlands, beaches, dunes, and natural drainage ways can also
help mitigate a community's vulnerability to damage from storms and
associated flooding. Floodplains and wetlands, for instance, serve as
natural buffers, absorbing excess rainfall and limiting the effects of
floods on the built environment. Coastal wetlands can absorb storm surge,
while beaches and dunes provide physical protection from storm surge. Over
time, some of these natural storm protection features have suffered
damages and losses as a result of development pressures. A number of
communities have adopted policies designed to protect these natural
protective features. For example, federal, state, and local government
resources have been spent in Florida to restore and enhance these natural
protective features, including beach and dune restoration.

^26A 100-year flood is one that has a 1 in 100 chance (1 percent) of
occurring in any given year.

While Various Approaches Are Used to Encourage Natural Hazard Mitigation,
Significant Challenges Remain

Federal, state, and local governments provide a variety of financial and
other assistance to encourage natural hazard mitigation activities. For
example, at the federal level, FEMA offers assistance to states and local
communities through grant programs such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP). At the local level, communities can use economic
incentives such as tax benefits to encourage mitigation activities.
Insurance discounts can also encourage communities and individuals to
undertake mitigation measures. However, despite these methods of
encouraging mitigation, several impediments exist to implementing
mitigation activities. For example, mitigation efforts are often
constrained by conflicting local interests, cost concerns, and a lack of
public awareness of the risks of natural hazards and the importance of
mitigation.

Financial and Other Assistance Can Help Encourage Some Communities and
Individuals to Take Action

Federal, state, and local agencies are taking steps to provide direct
assistance to some communities to reduce losses from natural hazards
although not all communities have the means to take full advantage of this
assistance. This assistance can help communities overcome some of the
impediments they face in undertaking mitigation activities by, for
example, providing funding to assist in implementing mitigation activities
and offering incentives to encourage mitigation activities. At the federal
level, FEMA provides funding and technical assistance to help communities
reduce losses from natural hazards. To provide states with an incentive to
undertake more proactive mitigation activities, DMA 2000 authorized the
grant of additional HMGP funds to states where a disaster area is declared
if the state has prepared a more advanced hazard mitigation plan.^27
States that demonstrate that they have integrated their hazard mitigation
plans with other state or regional planning (e.g., comprehensive and
capital improvement plans); effectively administer, implement, and assess
existing mitigation programs; and are committed to a comprehensive state
mitigation program receive additional funding to conduct mitigation
activities. According to FEMA officials, as of May 2007, only 11 states
had completed advanced mitigation plans and were eligible for this
additional funding.

^27See Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act S 322 (codified at 42 U.S.C.
S 5165); see also 44 C.F.R. pt. 201 (2006). FEMA refers to these plans as
enhanced hazard mitigation plans. An enhanced mitigation plan qualifies a
state for HMGP funds totaling 20 percent of the total estimated eligible
Stafford Act disaster assistance for a particular disaster, compared with
7.5 percent for a state with a standard plan.

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.^28 Using FEMA HMGP funds from
a tornado event in 1999, the state offered refunds of up to $2,000 for
home owners who built safe rooms in their homes. Some local community
hazard mitigation officials with whom we met, however, said that the HMGP
application process is complex and time and resource intensive, and that
long delays can occur in receiving mitigation funds. Delays in receiving
grant funds can lead to additional obstacles for local communities. One
local mitigation official told us that delays in receiving grant funds
prevents the city from being more cost-effective in terms of mitigation.
She stated that it would be most effective to conduct mitigation
activities immediately after a storm event, when damages are being
repaired, rather than waiting for HMGP funds to become available.
According to FEMA, while states have up to 1 year from the date of a
disaster declaration to apply for HMGP funds, the approval process can
begin much earlier following a disaster if state and local officials have
previously identified viable mitigation projects that are consistent with
state and local mitigation plans.

Although mitigation grant funds may be available to communities, not all
communities are able to capitalize on these opportunities. For example,
most of FEMA's grant programs fund up to 75 percent of the mitigation
project costs and require local communities to produce the remainder of
the funds needed for mitigation projects. Oklahoma state emergency
management officials with whom we met noted that although local
communities might have several mitigation programs available to them,
often, communities do not have the resources needed to provide their share
of the cost. The officials further commented that this problem tends to
affect many of the smaller communities in the state and that these
communities should be careful not to commit themselves to too many
mitigation projects.

FEMA also offers support to communities by providing technical assistance
on hazard mitigation, offering guidance on how communities can develop
hazard mitigation plans and identify the areas most at risk from hazards.
For example, FEMA developed and provides training on a loss estimation
software program (i.e., HAZUS-MH) that analyzes potential losses caused by
floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes that communities use to determine
where to focus their mitigation efforts. FEMA also provides information
directly to help residents and business owners choose the type of flood
insurance policy that best suits their needs through its FloodSmart Web
site and marketing program aimed at increasing flood insurance coverage
nationwide. In addition, FEMA provides multihazard design, construction,
and retrofit guidance at no cost for various stakeholders, including
design professionals, local officials, homebuilders, home owners, and
other building owners.

^28A safe room is a shelter that provides protection during tornado and
other wind events.

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.^29 Through grant programs, these agencies
provide funding to state forestry agencies and local fire departments for
equipment, training, risk assessment, fire prevention work, and public
information and education activities. Similarly, NOAA assists U.S. coastal
states through financial and other types of assistance to protect the
nation's coastal communities. By partnering with states and local
authorities, NOAA helps communities conduct coastal hazards planning and
administer state or local land-use programs that guide more prudent
development in hazardous coastal areas. Other federal agencies offer a
number of programs that can be used to address communities' natural hazard
mitigation needs. For example, the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development has flexibility to use Community Development Block
Grant program funds when available to assist communities recovering in
presidentially declared disaster areas. These activities can include the
acquisition and reconstruction of properties damaged by a natural hazard
event.^30

^29These agencies include the Forest Service within the Department of
Agriculture; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management;
Fish and Wildlife Service; and the National Park Service, within the
Department of the Interior.

^30See 42 U.S.C. S 5321; 24 C.F.R. pt. 570.

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:

           o 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.

           o 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.

           o The Boulder County Land Use Department assists home owners'
           associations by providing grants to conduct fuel management in
           neighborhoods that are at high risk from wildland fires. The grant
           recipients reduce their wildland fire risk by cutting tree limbs
           and clearing other debris from their properties, and the waste is
           chipped and used to heat county office buildings.
			  
			  Insurance Premium Discounts Can Encourage Some Communities and Home
			  Owners to Undertake Mitigation Efforts

           Insurance premium discounts can promote mitigation by rewarding
           property owners for actions they take to reduce the effects of
           natural hazards. At the federal level, the NFIP Community Rating
           System (CRS) encourages communities to reduce their flood risks by
           engaging in floodplain management activities. CRS provides
           discounts on flood insurance for individuals in communities that
           establish floodplain management programs that go beyond the
           minimum requirements of NFIP. Depending on the level of activities
           that communities undertake in four areas--public information,
           mapping and regulatory activities, flood damage reduction, and
           flood preparedness--communities are categorized into 1 of 10 CRS
           classes. A Class 1 rating provides the largest flood insurance
           premium reduction (45 percent) to communities, while a community
           with a Class 10 rating receives no insurance premium reduction.

           Mitigation officials with whom we spoke said they believe that the
           CRS insurance discounts are an effective means of encouraging
           communities that participate in NFIP to undertake more aggressive
           flood mitigation. For example, an official from the Palm Beach
           County Division of Emergency Management noted that the county's
           CRS rating of 6 entitles flood insurance policyholders in all 37
           jurisdictions in the county to a 25 percent reduction in their
           flood insurance premiums. A city of Napa official said that one of
           the goals of the Napa River Flood Protection Project is to improve
           the city of Napa's CRS rating from a Class 7 to a Class 5--a
           change that would increase the flood insurance policyholder
           discount by an additional 10 percent. Although these discounts are
           available, less than 5 percent of the communities participating in
           NFIP participate in the CRS program.^31 Furthermore, CRS classes 1
           through 4 each contain only one community. Of these four
           communities, Roseville, California has a Class 1 rating and is the
           only community in the United States eligible for the maximum flood
           insurance premium discounts of 45 percent. According to FEMA,
           approximately 1,055 communities will have flood insurance
           discounts beginning October 1, 2007, which represents about
           two-thirds of NFIP flood insurance policies.

           States and communities can also provide opportunities for property
           owners to receive insurance premium discounts by participating in
           the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS(TM))
           program, which was developed by ISO.^32 Through the program,
           communities are assessed according to the building codes adopted
           in a community, amendments to the code, and how well the codes are
           enforced. The BCEGS(TM) 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(TM) 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.^33

^31According to FEMA officials, the individuals in participating
communities account for 67 percent of NFIP policyholders.

^32The BCEGS^TM was developed by ISO, which is an independent statistical,
rating, and advisory organization that serves the property/casualty
insurance industry.

^33The exception is in Florida where insurance companies are required by
law to offer discounts on wind protection premiums based on a community's
BCEGS^TM rating, and communities that do not participate in the program
are assessed a 1 percent surcharge on wind protection premiums.

           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.^34 In California, state law requires the California
           Earthquake Authority (CEA)--a privately financed but publicly
           managed state agency--to offer a 5-percent discount on retrofitted
           homes that were built before 1979 and that meet other
           specifications.^35 However, according to information provided by
           CEA, only about 12 percent of California residents have earthquake
           insurance. In addition, the CEA Mitigation Program Coordinator
           stated that it is unclear to what extent insurance premium
           discounts are an incentive to encourage individual homeowners to
           undertake earthquake mitigation activities. Also, city officials
           whom we met with in Florida said that discounts are not very
           effective for creating incentives for home owners because of the
           increasing insurance premiums in that state. For example,
           according to the Florida Financial Services Commission, the
           largest private insurer in Florida increased its rates by 66
           percent in 2006.
			  
			  Public Education and Outreach Can Help Raise Awareness of Natural
			  Hazards and Mitigation

           Individuals and communities must understand the hazards that pose
           a risk to them and the options for reducing those risks in order
           to make informed decisions not only about mitigation but also
           about where to live, purchase property, or locate a business or
           critical facility. Several state and local officials told us that
           individuals are often unaware of the risks they face. For example,
           one county mitigation official in Florida explained that the
           state's population continues to grow and that most of the new
           residents were unfamiliar with the state's hazard risks and
           mitigation options because they come from out of state. Public
           education and training campaigns help to ensure that communities
           and individuals receive adequate information on the hazards they
           face as well as the options for reducing their risk. Education and
           outreach programs are valuable components of mitigation programs
           and can take many forms, including distributing educational
           materials to individuals, organizing community events that discuss
           mitigation options, and incorporating hazard information into
           school curriculums.

^34Florida Statute S 627.0629 requires insurance companies to offer
Florida homeowners "discounts, credits, or other rate differentials..."
for construction techniques that reduce damage and loss in windstorms.

^35Cal. Ins. Code S 10089.40(d).

           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.^36 The program is also used to educate
           developers who are building homes in the wildland-urban interface
           about the various landscaping and other mitigation features that
           can be incorporated into developments to help reduce the risk of
           damage due to wildland fires. In addition to large national
           programs, we observed a variety of different public education
           campaigns at the state and local level during our field work. For
           example:

           o 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.

           o 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.

^36Firewise Communities is jointly sponsored by the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, National Emergency Management Association,
National Association of State Foresters, National Fire Protection
Association, FEMA, U.S. Fire Administration, Forest Service, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Park Service. Numerous state and local fire and forestry
officials also participate in Firewise program activities.

           When communities take actions to increase public awareness of the
           hazards citizens face and the options available to reduce them,
           communities may be more likely to take progressive actions to
           solve hazard problems. For example, when citizens in Napa,
           California, were educated about the flood hazard in the community
           and the options being proposed to address the risk, the community
           voted to increase the sales tax to fund the local portion of a
           flood mitigation project. The city of Berkeley,
           California--another community that has undertaken considerable
           public education and outreach efforts--has the highest percentage
           of seismically retrofitted buildings in the San Francisco Bay
           area. The city has also passed a number of bond initiatives to
           fund mitigation activities and has been successful in recruiting
           residents to assist in promoting mitigation activities. However,
           public awareness alone cannot always overcome some of the
           difficulties communities have in promoting mitigation activities
           such as lacking the necessary funding to undertake mitigation
           activities and the perception that individuals may have that a
           disaster will not happen in their community.
			  
			  Conflicting Interests Can Impede Local Mitigation Efforts

           Hazard mitigation goals and local economic interests often
           conflict, and the resulting tension can often have a profound
           effect on mitigation efforts. As we have previously reported,
           local governments may be reluctant to take actions to mitigate
           natural hazards for a number of reasons, such as local sensitivity
           to such measures as building code enforcement and land-use
           planning and the conflict between hazard mitigation and
           development goals.^37 For example, community goals such as
           building housing and promoting economic development may be higher
           priorities than formulating mitigation regulations that may
           include restrictive development regulations and more stringent
           building codes. In particular, local government officials we
           contacted commented that developers often want to increase growth
           in hazard-prone areas (e.g., along the coast or in floodplains) to
           support economic development. These areas are often desirable for
           residences and businesses, and such development increases local
           tax revenues but is generally in conflict with mitigation goals.
           For instance, during our visit to Tulsa, Oklahoma--a community
           that has repeatedly experienced dangerous floods--local officials
           expressed their opposition to a project proposed by developers to
           construct an island in the Arkansas River. The proposed project
           would create a 40-acre man-made island with residential and
           commercial development in the river. According to city officials,
           this development would be downstream from the Keystone Dam, which
           in the past has had to release water that has resulted in flooding
           downstream, and the proposed project would be located in an area
           that is vulnerable to such flooding. The Tulsa officials said that
           this project highlights the conflict between economic development
           and mitigation efforts, as developers are promoting the project as
           economic development for the city, while emergency management
           officials are not in favor of the project due to the potential for
           damage to the proposed islands and other properties downstream.

^37GAO, Disaster Assistances: Information on Federal Disaster Mitigation
Efforts, [41]GAO/T-RCED-98-67 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998).

           Land-use planning experts told us that the short-term perspective
           of some local elected officials can conflict with long-term
           community efforts such as limiting growth in hazard-prone areas or
           adopting strong building codes. Political pressures can also play
           a large role in communities' choice of mitigation activities.
           National building code officials stated that in some communities,
           exemptions and variances to existing building codes are made
           because of political pressure. For example, mitigation experts
           commented that because of political pressures in Florida, counties
           located in the Panhandle were originally exempt from stricter
           statewide building codes for hurricane protection. The exemption
           was removed from law at the end of the 2006 Florida Legislative
           session, and buildings in these counties now have to comply with
           the more stringent hurricane protection requirements of the
           Florida Building Code. Additionally, in some communities political
           support for implementing mitigation activities is lacking. For
           example, during our field work in Colorado, officials told us that
           while some communities in the state have adopted model building
           codes, many jurisdictions are "home rule" communities that often
           resist federal and state regulations, which local citizens view as
           government intervention. Federal, state, and local officials all
           cited the importance of political support in implementing
           mitigation actions and, said that without political support, the
           amount of mitigation activities that occur would be limited.
			  
           Costs Concerns May Hinder Mitigation Efforts

           Local communities may encounter difficulties in implementing and
           maintaining mitigation-related policies due to cost concerns.
           Local communities can incur large expenses in implementing certain
           mandatory mitigation requirements, such as hazard mapping,
           land-use planning, and local ordinances to address natural hazard
           risks. For example, the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
           requires cities and counties to use seismic hazard zone maps in
           their land-use and building permit process.^38 However, according
           to a 2005 American Planning Association report on landslide
           hazards and planning, local planning and building officials have
           been apprehensive about the financial costs of compliance, which
           requires the use of hazard maps, regional and site-specific hazard
           assessments, and amendments to local regulations.^39 Additionally,
           maintaining mitigation-related policies can be difficult for
           communities because of the costs and resources involved. For
           example, the process of updating local building codes is resource
           intensive, and although newer codes may provide better protection
           from natural hazards, local communities may choose not to adopt
           them because of the associated expenses (i.e., the adoption and
           implementation process and the training of building code officials
           and inspectors on the updated code). Further, information on local
           natural hazard risks may need to be updated periodically, a
           process that can be time consuming and expensive. The Oklahoma
           Water Resources Board floodplain manager told us that updating
           floodplain maps to reflect changes in local development is
           expensive because it could require hiring outside engineering
           contractors.

           Financial constraints may also limit communities' decisions to
           eliminate or limit development in hazard-prone areas. For example,
           an effective way for communities to eliminate development in
           high-risk areas is to acquire land and retain it for open space.
           However, property acquisition is expensive and can require
           long-range planning, multiple funding sources, and political
           support. Communities, particularly those dependent on new
           development for economic growth, can also face resistance to
           limiting the amount of development that is allowed to occur in
           hazard-prone areas and may be hesitant to imposing strong
           mitigation requirements. For example, implementing density
           restrictions that reduce the amount of development that can occur
           in a hazard-prone area can result in a perceived or real decrease
           in the value of land and make the area less attractive for
           development.

           Private property owners are also influenced by cost considerations
           when deciding whether to implement hazard mitigation. For example,
           many home owners may be reluctant to pay for the additional costs
           of features that exceed local building codes, such as reinforced
           concrete walls, fire-resistant building materials, and
           flood-proofing features, all which add to the cost of building a
           home. According to building experts, for most home owners and
           potential home buyers cost is the primary factor in deciding
           whether to include mitigation features in new or existing homes.
           Officials from the National Association of Homebuilders told us
           that the economic cost of mitigation measures should be
           considered, because every $1,000 increase in median home prices
           can price about 240,000 home buyers out of the market. During our
           field work in Lehigh Acres, Florida, officials from the Institute
           for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) told us that not all new home
           buyers were willing to spend the additional costs for
           incorporating mitigation measures, especially first-time buyers.
           IBHS has developed standards for building hurricane-resistant
           homes. According to IBHS officials, incorporating these standards
           can add about 10 to 15 percent to the total cost of building a
           home. The officials also added that the fact that appraisers often
           do not include the added costs of mitigation features into the
           appraised home value is another impediment to mitigation that
           needs to be addressed. FEMA officials pointed out that, in
           addition to the cost of mitigation features, the benefits they
           provide should be communicated to individuals when they purchase a
           home.

^38See Cal. Pub. Res. Code, SS 2690 et seq.; Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14,
SS 3270 et seq.

^39American Planning Association, Landslide Hazards and Planning,
(Chicago, IL: September 2005).

           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.^40 According to an estimate prepared by a California
           Seismic Safety Commission structural engineer, about two-thirds of
           over 25,000 unreinforced masonry buildings that have been
           inventoried in California have been retrofitted or demolished.
           However, about 8,000 buildings in high seismic regions have not
           been retrofitted, primarily because of the high cost of
           retrofitting. For example, the cost to retrofit an average-size
           10,000-square-foot building is about $400,000. As a result, some
           buildings that do not generate sufficient income to pay for the
           cost of retrofitting have been left vacant. Further, a study that
           assessed the risks and losses of potential earthquakes in the New
           York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region determined that
           retrofitting thousands of buildings in New York would be
           "impractical and economically unrealistic."^41 This decision was
           made despite the fact that New York City faces moderate seismic
           risk and contains a large number of unreinforced masonry buildings
           used primarily as housing or for commercial purposes. In 1995, New
           York City passed its first seismic building code, which will help
           to ensure that new construction meets these standards. However,
           because these standards do not apply to buildings built prior to
           1995, even a moderate earthquake could cause much damage to the
           existing building stock.

^40Cal. Gov't Code SS 8875 et seq.

           Lack of Rigorous Building Code Enforcement Impedes Hazard Mitigation

           Building code officials and others with whom we spoke told us that
           improvements are needed to address the lack of rigorous
           enforcement of building codes in the United States. According to
           ISO officials, of approximately 19,000 communities assessed
           through the BCEGS^TM program, only 5 communities have received the
           highest classification that indicates exemplary commitment to
           building code enforcement. The ISO officials also commented that
           building departments in most of the communities they review
           conduct more inspections per day than is feasible to provide
           rigorous code enforcement. National building code officials told
           us that many local building departments do not have the adequate
           funds and staffing levels to conduct proper code enforcement.
           Additionally, they commented that low funding levels can affect
           the amount of training local building inspectors receive and
           thereby reduce their ability to enforce the code.
			  
			  Limited Public Awareness Constrains Mitigation Activities

           Efforts to adopt new mitigation activities and strategies have
           been constrained by the general public's lack of awareness and
           understanding about natural hazards and risk. Individuals often
           also have a misperception that natural hazard events will not
           occur in their community and are not interested in learning of the
           likelihood of an event occurring. For example, in
           California--where public perceptions of natural hazard risk are
           high--some mitigation measures have been implemented, such as
           strengthening transit systems, bridges, and highways. However, in
           other parts of the country, where seismic risk is high but
           damaging earthquakes occur less frequently (e.g., New Madrid
           seismic zone), public awareness of the risk is lower, and fewer
           mitigation measures are in place. Additionally, land-use experts
           and mitigation officials told us that it is often difficult for
           the public to perceive natural hazard risk or believe that a
           natural hazard event will occur in their community. However,
           public skepticism is significantly reduced immediately following
           natural hazard events, and mitigation activities are often
           conducted during such periods--for example, the adoption of more
           stringent building codes after Hurricane Katrina and the seismic
           retrofitting requirements approved after major earthquakes in
           California.
			  
^41Tantala, M., Nordenson G., et al, "Earthquake Risks and Mitigation in
the New York | New Jersey | Connecticut Region," NYCEM, The New York City
Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation, Final Summary Report,
MCEER-03-SP02, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, University at Buffalo, 2003.

           Limited public awareness may also be a result of the complexity of
           the information that is needed for individuals to understand their
           hazard risks. Local community decision makers may not fully
           understand the science involved in predicting the probability of
           natural hazard events such as earthquakes, making it difficult for
           a community to develop appropriate mitigation plans. For example,
           USGS officials cited the complexity of geologic science as a
           challenge to communicating information on hazards. The officials
           also said that the ability of decision makers to develop
           mitigation strategies for their communities depended on the
           availability of appropriate and easily understandable information.
           As a result, programs to improve public awareness and education
           are long-term and require sustained effort.
			  
			  A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a
			  Comprehensive Strategic Framework for National Natural Hazard
			  Mitigation Goals

           Collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies as well as
           nongovernmental stakeholders on natural hazard mitigation efforts
           tends to occur on a hazard-specific basis, typically after a
           disaster, or through informal methods. These efforts include
           developing national mitigation strategies or interagency programs
           dedicated to reducing losses from particular natural hazards. In
           addition, as a way to promote collaboration among all mitigation
           stakeholders, the federal government develops partnerships with
           state and local governments, professional associations,
           nongovernmental groups, businesses, academia, and individual
           community members--partnerships that are critical to the success
           of any mitigation program. Although the current approach includes
           some key practices on collaboration, it is fragmented and does not
           provide a comprehensive strategic framework that combines both
           pre- and postdisaster mitigation activities. Without such a
           framework, the federal government may not be effectively
           identifying and managing all natural hazard risks nationwide.
			  
			  Some Collaboration Exists among Mitigation Stakeholders

           Mitigation efforts often involve many federal agencies that have
           defined missions and different programs to achieve mitigation
           goals related to a specific hazard. Successful mitigation efforts
           require collaboration not only among federal agencies but also
           between state and local government agencies as well as a variety
           of nongovernmental entities, because natural hazard mitigation
           activities are primarily implemented at the state and local level.
           Accordingly, participation and, ultimately buy-in from a broad
           range of stakeholders--including state and local agencies,
           businesses, professional associations, nonprofit organizations,
           academia, and members of the community--are vital to the success
           of any mitigation effort. We identified a variety of ways that
           federal agencies collaborate with each other and with nonfederal
           stakeholders. The collaboration efforts are often aimed at
           establishing approaches to working together; clarifying
           priorities, roles and responsibilities; and aligning resources to
           accomplish common outcomes.

           First, consistent with key practices in collaboration, federal
           agencies involved in mitigation create hazard-specific strategies
           and programs for reducing losses from specific natural hazards.^42
           These strategies and programs detail the roles and
           responsibilities for the federal agencies involved in reducing
           hazard losses and show how the agencies will work together to
           achieve that goal. For example

           o 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.^43
           The strategy recommends that collaboration be improved among
           federal, state, and local agencies in order to (1) establish more
           effective partnerships with the academic and private sectors and
           (2) better leverage resources. To eliminate duplication of
           efforts, the strategy names the federal agencies responsible for
           leading each activity--a key practice in collaboration. The
           strategy addresses the need for increased public awareness and
           education about landslides and names FEMA and USGS as the agencies
           responsible for leading the development of information and
           education programs.

^42 [42]GAO-06-15 .

^43USGS, National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy--A Framework for
Loss Reduction, USGS Circular 1244 (Reston, Virginia: 2003).

           o The 10-year Comprehensive Strategy for reducing wildland fire
           risks to communities and the environment involves many federal and
           nonfederal stakeholders.^44 This strategy provides a collaborative
           framework to assist communities in implementing mitigation
           measures. Both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
           worked with the other stakeholders to develop a plan to implement
           the strategy.^45 The plan identifies tasks associated with
           reducing losses from wildland fires, including identifying the
           level at which collaboration should occur as well as the
           stakeholders responsible for leading the task. For example, one
           task was to compile examples of local zoning ordinances and state
           planning efforts that have successfully reduced risks associated
           with wildland fire. The plan also specifies that collaboration
           should occur at the national, state, and local levels and that the
           National Association of Counties and the National Association of
           State Foresters would have leadership roles.

           o 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.^46 In 2004,
           Congress established the Interagency Coordinating Committee to
           plan, manage, and coordinate the NEHRP.^47 This committee consists
           of FEMA, USGS, the National Science Foundation, Office of Science
           and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and, as
           the lead agency, the National Institute of Standards and
           Technology. The agencies are working together to develop a NEHRP
           strategic plan and a coordinated interagency budget. The program
           also seeks to improve earthquake hazards identification and risk
           assessment methods. Each agency's mission, although separate and
           distinct, has been integrated into a complementary program that
           seeks to promote earthquake mitigation.

           Second, federal agencies typically collaborate on mitigation
           activities after a disaster event in the areas that have been
           impacted. For example, the Department of Homeland Security issued
           the National Response Plan in December 2004, intending it to be an
           all-discipline, all-hazards plan establishing a single,
           comprehensive framework for the management of domestic incidents
           when federal involvement is necessary. The plan contains one
           component on postdisaster mitigation that addresses long-term
           community recovery and mitigation, but does not address
           predisaster mitigation efforts.^48 Specifically, the plan provides
           a collaborative mechanism to assist communities that have been
           impacted by a disaster to (1) identify appropriate federal
           programs and agencies, (2) avoid duplication of assistance, and
           (3) ensure follow through of hazard mitigation efforts. These
           efforts can include developing long-term recovery plans for
           communities impacted by a disaster, that identify priorities in
           rebuilding and improving hazard resistance in new structures. FEMA
           is responsible for leading the effort to implement this component
           and is supported by six primary federal agencies as well as a
           number of other agencies that have a supportive role.^49

^44"A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy," August
2001.

^45"A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to
Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan,"
December 2006.

^46See the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-124, S
5, 91 Stat. 1098 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. S 7704).

^47See National Earthquakes Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act
of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-360, title I, S 103, 118 Stat. 1669 (2004). Prior
to the 2004 act, an ad hoc interagency committee had been the coordinating
mechanism for the NEHRP with FEMA as the lead agency. See Pub. L. No.
96-472, Title I, S 101, 94 Stat. 2257 (1980).

           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.^50
           NOAA agency officials also commented that collaboration occurs
           when agency officials assist in conducting training for other
           federal agencies. For example, the National Weather Service
           provides guest instructors for a week-long FEMA training course
           for emergency managers.

^48The component is "Emergency Support Function #14 - Long-Term Community
Recovery and Mitigation Annex." We did not evaluate the effectiveness of
this annex in this report. In prior work, however, we have evaluated
portions of the National Response Plan. See GAO Disaster Assistance:
Better Planning Needed for Housing Victims of Catastrophic Disasters,
[43]GAO-07-88 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2007).

^49These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and the Treasury, as well
as the Small Business Administration.

^50Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent
possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect
support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable
alternative. 3 C.F.R. 117 (1977), amended by Exec. Order 121148, 3 C.F.R.
412 (1979).

           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.^51 Local
           officials from each of the former Project Impact communities that
           we visited emphasized that the strength of the original
           public-private partnerships formed during Project Impact was a key
           reason their communities' mitigation efforts have been
           sustainable. The program provided small, one-time grants directly
           to communities and empowered leaders in those communities to build
           effective partnerships and encourage private sector financial
           participation before disasters occurred. For example, Deerfield
           Beach, Florida--the first Project Impact community--established a
           program that created partnerships with FEMA, IBHS, and four local
           lending institutions to provide interest free loans from local
           banks to help community businesses conduct wind resistance
           mitigation activities, such as installing impact-resistant glass
           and shutters, to reduce the effects of high winds.
			  
^51Project Impact was one of FEMA's predisaster mitigation programs that
began in 1997 and ended in fiscal year 2002. It was replaced by the
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.

           The Current Approach to Collaboration on Natural Hazard Mitigation
			  Does Not Provide a Comprehensive Mitigation Framework for the Nation

           While collaboration on specific hazard mitigation efforts occurs
           in a variety of ways, the current approach does not provide a
           strategic framework for coordinating nationwide pre- and
           postdisaster mitigation. In the past, such strategic frameworks
           were developed by FEMA and the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction,
           of which FEMA is a participant.^52 These frameworks shifted the
           focus from reacting to natural disasters to proactive coordinated
           pre- and postdisaster mitigation efforts.^53 In 1998, we reported
           that FEMA had taken a strategic approach to mitigation, in part
           through the development of a National Mitigation Strategy.^54 This
           strategy called for strengthening partnerships among all levels of
           government and the private sector and set forth major initiatives,
           along with timelines, in a number of areas, including leadership
           and coordination. For example, the strategy required that within 1
           year mitigation considerations be integrated into the management
           and operation of all federal programs that affect the built
           environment and that a Federal Interagency Mitigation Task Force
           convene to more closely coordinate federal mitigation authorities,
           among other things. While these strategies helped to provide a
           strategic framework for natural hazard mitigation in the past, the
           current approach tends to occur on a hazard-specific basis,
           typically after a disaster event, or through informal methods and
           does not create a similar framework.

           Various provisions of federal laws have stressed the importance of
           national hazard mitigation. For example, recognizing that
           expenditures for federal disaster assistance were increasing
           without the likelihood of corresponding reductions in losses from
           natural disasters, DMA 2000, provides, among other things, a
           framework for linking pre- and postdisaster mitigation initiatives
           with public and private interests to ensure an integrated,
           comprehensive approach to disaster loss reduction. It requires
           establishing a federal interagency taskforce for the purpose of
           "coordinating the implementation of predisaster hazard mitigation
           programs administered by the Federal Government."^55 DMA 2000
           further requires that the Administrator of FEMA serve as the
           chairperson of the taskforce, indicating the leadership role FEMA
           is expected to provide nationwide for all hazards. DMA 2000 also
           recognizes the need for nonfederal stakeholder involvement by
           including state and local governments in the taskforce. While this
           taskforce has yet to be created, the stated purpose of the
           taskforce, which is "coordinating the implementation of
           predisaster hazard mitigation programs administered by the Federal
           Government," is consistent with the need for the creation of a
           comprehensive national strategic framework for mitigation.

^52The Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction is an element of the President's
National Science and Technology Council and facilitates national
strategies for reducing disaster risks and losses that are based on
effective use of science and technology.

^53FEMA, National Mitigation Strategy: Partnerships for Building Safer
Communities (Washington, D.C.: 1995); National Science and Technology
Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee
on Natural Disaster Reduction, Reducing the Impacts of Natural Hazards: A
Strategy for the Nation (Washington, D.C.: 1992); National Science and
Technology Council, Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, Natural Disaster Reduction: A
Plan for the Nation (Washington, D.C.: 1996).

^54GAO, Disaster Assistance: Information on Federal Disaster Mitigation
Efforts, [44]GAO/T-RCED-98-67 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998).

           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.^56 The act defines emergency
           management as "the governmental function that coordinates and
           integrates all activities necessary to build, sustain, and improve
           the capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to,
           recover from, or mitigate against threatened or actual natural
           disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-made disasters."^57
           Moreover, the act defines FEMA's primary mission as reducing the
           loss of life and property "by leading and supporting the nation in
           a risk-based comprehensive emergency management system of
           preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation."^58

           While the current approach to collaboration on natural hazard
           mitigation often includes some key practices for collaboration, it
           tends to occur on a hazard-specific basis, typically after a
           disaster event, or through informal methods. This fragmented
           approach does not provide a comprehensive strategic framework for
           federal agencies and other stakeholders to collectively work
           toward accomplishing common national hazard mitigation goals. For
           example, while federal agency officials with whom we spoke
           discussed a variety of specific mitigation activities, it was
           unclear how these efforts fit into a comprehensive strategic
           framework for mitigation. Similar to the framework provided by the
           National Response Plan for managing domestic incidents and the
           frameworks provided in past national mitigation strategies, a
           comprehensive national framework for pre- and postdisaster
           mitigation would, among other things, define common national
           goals, establish joint strategies, leverage resources, assign
           roles and responsibilities, and develop performance measures and
           reporting requirements.

^55Pub. L. 106-390, S 103, 114 Stat. at 1557 (codified at 42 U.S.C. S
5134).

^56Pub. L. No. 109-295, title II, 120 Stat. 1355, 1394 (2006) (codified at
various sections of titles 6 and 42 of the U.S. Code).

^57Pub. L. No. 109-295, title II, S 602(7), 120 Stat. 1355, 1394 (2006)
(codified at 6 U.S.C. S 701).

^58Pub. L. No. 109-295, title II, S 611(11), 120 Stat. 1355, 1396-97
(2006) (codified at 6 U.S.C. S 313).

           A comprehensive strategic framework focused on mitigation
           activities that occur both before and after natural hazard events
           could strengthen FEMA's ability to assess whether all mitigation
           efforts are working together to accomplish national hazard
           mitigation goals that adequately prepare the nation for its
           natural hazard risks. Without such a framework, the federal
           government may not be effectively identifying and managing all
           natural hazard risks nationwide. Moreover, the current approach
           does not ensure that collective mitigation efforts are working
           together in a manner that leverages resources and develops
           synergies across various hazard-specific mitigation efforts.
			  
			  Conclusions

           No state in the country is immune to the risk from a natural
           hazard, be it floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, or
           wildland fires and large percentages of the U.S. population live
           in areas susceptible to more than one of these hazards. In
           particular, the coastal areas of the country, which contain a
           large portion of the nation's population and have experienced
           substantial growth, are susceptible to many natural hazards.
           Moreover, the implications of climate change, which may lead to
           more frequent storms and sea-level rise, increase the
           vulnerability and risks associated with hazard events. All of
           these factors present increasing risks to life and property
           throughout the United States and increasing expenditures by the
           federal government in the wake of a disaster. As seen in recent
           years, the level of destruction that a natural hazard event can
           cause can be devastating to those who experience it and pose major
           challenges to the federal government, which plays a key role in
           disaster recovery and assistance. As more people migrate to
           hazard-prone areas such as Florida and California, the need for a
           comprehensive strategic framework for natural hazard mitigation
           takes on new significance because these areas are subject to
           multiple hazards. Additionally, according to the National
           Institute of Building Sciences, hazard mitigation activities have
           been found to be a sound investment with every $1 FEMA provides
           communities for mitigation activities, resulting in an average of
           $4 in future benefits. While the federal government plays a key
           role in natural hazard mitigation efforts, measures such as hazard
           mitigation planning, development regulations, and the adoption and
           enforcement of strong building codes are ultimately the
           responsibility of local jurisdictions, which make decisions on the
           extent of development and on how and where new developments are
           built. Therefore, finding ways to effectively partner with and
           develop buy-in from state and local governments is critical to any
           federal mitigation effort.

           Federal agencies, particularly FEMA, play an important role in
           establishing and promoting collaboration on natural hazard
           mitigation and in developing a national mitigation framework that
           includes nonfederal stakeholders as active participants in efforts
           to reduce losses from natural hazards. While the current approach
           to collaboration on natural hazard mitigation involves a mix of
           methods and may be useful on a hazard-specific basis or for a
           particular hazard event, having a fragmented approach does not
           take full advantage of synergies that may exist among the
           different mitigation stakeholders. For example, given that many
           natural hazards are related, such as hurricanes and flooding or
           wildland fires and landslides, there may be opportunities to
           leverage resources and for stakeholders responsible for specific
           hazards to collaborate with other stakeholders on related hazards,
           such as coordinating earthquake mitigation efforts with tsunami
           mitigation efforts. The creation of a strategic framework for pre-
           and postdisaster mitigation among all stakeholders nationwide
           could help overcome some of the challenges faced in implementing
           mitigation efforts and would help define common national goals for
           mitigation, identify risks, establish joint strategies across
           federal and state programs, leverage resources across agencies,
           assign lead roles and responsibilities, and include mechanisms to
           monitor, evaluate, and report on results. FEMA's new
           organizational changes and responsibilities under the Post-Katrina
           Reform Act call for the agency to provide Federal leadership in
           promoting such a strategic framework for mitigation. The federal
           government could benefit from a comprehensive strategic framework,
           which could help to effectively identify national natural hazard
           risks, minimize the effects of hazards before they occur, and
           reduce overall future hazard losses to the nation.
			  
			  Recommendation for Executive Action

           We recommend that the Administrator of FEMA, in consultation with
           other appropriate federal agencies, develop and maintain a
           national comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation that
           incorporates both pre- and postdisaster mitigation efforts. The
           framework should include items such as common mitigation goals;
           performance measures and reporting requirements; the role of
           specific activities in the overall framework; and the roles and
           responsibilities of federal, state, and local agencies, and
           nongovernmental stakeholders.
			  
			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           We provided a draft of this report to FEMA, NOAA, USGS, the Corps
           of Engineers, and the Forest Service for review and comments. The
           Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior
           provided written comments on behalf of FEMA and USGS,
           respectively, that are discussed below and presented in appendix
           II and III.

           FEMA generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendation but
           noted that we did not adequately reflect the success of the
           floodplain management requirements associated with NFIP, including
           the community rating system. We added language that FEMA suggested
           on the estimated annual losses avoided because of NFIP floodplain
           management activities. However, analyzing the overall
           effectiveness of floodplain management activities was beyond the
           scope of this report.

           FEMA also noted that it supported a national comprehensive
           strategic framework and setting common mitigation goals. However,
           the agency disagreed with setting performance measures and
           reporting requirements on a process that takes place largely at
           the local level. The letter stated that it would be inappropriate
           for FEMA or any other federal agency to dictate mitigation
           activities, outside of ensuring that mitigation plans and grant
           applications met the eligibility requirements defined in
           authorizing statutes and regulations. We agree that local
           communities are responsible for identifying natural hazard risks
           and for setting mitigation priorities. But mitigation activities
           could benefit from having federal agencies set performance
           measures to ensure that crosscutting agency goals are consistent
           and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing. With such
           practices in place, FEMA, in consultation with other federal
           agencies, could partner with and develop buy-in from state and
           local agencies and nongovernmental stakeholders. Trend analysis
           and reporting requirements, both of which FEMA cited as a more
           appropriate measure, would be consistent with our recommendation
           and could be effective in measuring the success of a comprehensive
           strategic mitigation framework.

           FEMA also commented that it participates on the Subcommittee on
           Disaster Reduction, which coordinates the scientific and technical
           aspects of risk identification and reduction across the federal
           government. The letter states that the subcommittee accomplishes
           several of the objectives identified in our recommendation. We
           added language clarifying that FEMA participates on the
           subcommittee. We cite the subcommittee as an example of a
           governmentwide group that has shifted its focus from reacting to
           natural disasters to proactively coordinating pre- and
           postdisaster mitigation efforts using science and technology. We
           see the subcommittee as an important component of, but not a
           substitute for, a national comprehensive strategic framework for
           mitigation.

           USGS wrote that the agency agreed with the need for a
           comprehensive strategy and emphasized that USGS believed in the
           importance of developing such a strategy together with FEMA and in
           equal partnership with the other agencies. A jointly developed
           national strategy could play a clear role in preparing for and
           dealing with natural hazards. USGS added that it would be helpful
           if the report identified the challenges associated with developing
           such a national framework. While identifying all the challenges
           was beyond the scope of this report, we did illustrate several of
           the obstacles to implementing a comprehensive strategic framework
           for mitigation--including the fragmented federal approach to
           mitigation--which does not take full advantage of synergies that
           may exist among mitigation stakeholders. Additionally, USGS stated
           that it would be helpful if we identified those programs that have
           delivered the best value in mitigation and the areas in which
           mitigation practices would be most effective. We agree with USGS
           that a discussion of successful mitigation practice is important.
           In this report, for example, we describe a variety of mitigation
           activities that exist to reduce the risk of losses from natural
           hazards, including hazard mitigation planning, the adoption and
           enforcement of more rigorous building codes, and the use of hazard
           control structures.

           The Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, and NOAA orally commented
           that they agreed with the report but did not comment specifically
           on the recommendation. Technical comments provided by the agencies
           have been incorporated in this report where appropriate.

           As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
           contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
           until 30 days after the date of this report. At that time, we will
           send copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
           the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; the
           Chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services; the
           Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security,
           and Interior; and other interested parties. This report will also
           be available at no charge on GAO's Web site [31]http://www.gao.gov
           .

           Please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or [32][email protected] if
           you or your staff have any questions about this report. Contact
           points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
           Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key
           contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

           Sincerely yours,

           Orice M. Williams
			  Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment
			  
			  Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

           Our objectives were to examine the (1) natural hazards that
           present a risk to life and property in the United States, areas
           that are most susceptible to them, and factors that may be
           increasing these risks; (2) mitigation activities that reduce
           losses from natural hazards; (3) impediments to implementing and
           methods for encouraging mitigation activities; and (4)
           collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders
           to promote mitigation.

           To examine the natural hazards that present a risk to life and
           property in the United States, we used a comprehensive list of
           natural hazards compiled by the Federal Emergency Management
           Agency (FEMA) in a guidance document for individual and community
           preparedness. The list includes floods, tornadoes, hurricanes,
           thunderstorms and lightning, winter storms and extreme cold,
           extreme heat, earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides and debris flow
           (mudslides), tsunamis, fires, and wildland fires. For the purposes
           of our analysis, we did not include fires because most home and
           other structure fires are human induced. To identify areas that
           are most susceptible to natural hazard risks, we created national,
           county-level maps that show the level of risk for each hazard. We
           limited our analysis to the 50 states and the District of
           Columbia. Additionally, we did not create maps for all natural
           hazards and narrowed the list of hazards we mapped to the
           following: floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildland fires,
           tornadoes, and landslides. These natural hazards were chosen based
           on the following criteria. First, we limited the scope of the word
           "property" in FEMA's definition of hazard mitigation--actions
           taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risks to life and
           property from the effects of hazards--to the built environment
           and, therefore, did not map hazards that result mainly in losses
           to agriculture. Next, we focused on hazards for which available
           mitigation activities are long-term loss reduction measures and
           not those that primarily focus on monitoring, warning systems,
           emergency response, and evacuations. Finally, we focused on the
           natural hazards that represent large annual losses in the United
           States (where data were available.)

           To develop our natural hazard risk maps, we used data from a
           variety of sources. We used historical hazard data from 1980 to
           2005 as a representation of current hazard risk for floods,
           hurricanes, and wildland fires. For tornadoes, we limited our
           analysis of historical data from 1980 to 2004. Earthquake and
           landslide risk were mapped based on the level of future risk for
           an event occurring. The data used for each of the maps are
           explained below. We determined these data sources to be
           sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

           o Floods - As a proxy for flood risk, we used FEMA data on
           counties that experienced a major disaster declarations for
           flooding.

           o 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."

           o 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.

           o 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.

           o Tornadoes - We obtained historical tornado data from the NOAA's
           National Weather Service that are available for download from
           [33]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.

           o 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.
			  
			  Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
			  
			  Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
			  
			  Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  GAO Contact

           Orice Williams, (202) 512-8678 or [34][email protected]
			  
			  Staff Acknowledgments

           In addition to the person named above, Andy Finkel, Assistant
           Director; Nicholas Alexander; Emily Chalmers; Leo Chyi; Isidro
           Gomez; Eileen Harrity; Christine Houle; Kai-Yan Lee; John Mingus;
           Marc Molino; Omyra Ramsingh, and William Sparling made key
           contributions to this report.
			  
			  GAO's Mission

           The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.
			  
			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [35]www.gao.gov ). Each
           weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
           correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
           newly posted products every afternoon, go to [36]www.gao.gov and
           select "Subscribe to Updates."
			  
			  Order by Mail or Phone

           The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
           are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
           Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
           Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
           discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

           U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
           (202) 512-6061
			  
			  To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: [37]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [38][email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [39][email protected] (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
			  			  
           Public Affairs

           Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [40][email protected] (202) 512-4800
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
           Washington, D.C. 20548

(250286)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? [45]GAO-07-403 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Orice Williams (202) 512-8678 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [46]GAO-07-403 , a report to the Ranking Member, Committee
on Financial Services, House of Representatives

August 2007

NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION

Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a
Comprehensive Strategic Framework

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.

[47]What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), in consultation with other appropriate federal agencies,
develop and maintain a national comprehensive strategic framework for
mitigation. FEMA generally agreed with the report's recommendation.

Natural hazards present risks to life and property throughout the United
States. Flooding is the most widespread and destructive of these,
resulting in billions of dollars in property losses each year. Hurricanes,
earthquakes, and wildland fires also pose significant risks in certain
regions of the country. Tornadoes, landslides, tsunamis, and volcanic
eruptions can also occur in some areas. Population growth in hazard-prone
areas, especially coastal areas, is increasing the nation's vulnerability
to losses because more people and property are at risk. Climate change may
also impact the frequency and severity of future natural hazard events. A
variety of natural hazard mitigation activities exist, which are primarily
implemented at the state and local level, and include hazard mitigation
planning; strong building codes and design standards; and hazard control
structures (e.g., levees). For example, strong building codes and design
standards can make structures better able to withstand a hazard event (see
fig.) and hazard control structures help protect existing at-risk areas.

Public education, financial assistance, and insurance discounts can help
encourage mitigation. For example, federal, state, and local governments
provide financial assistance to promote mitigation and insurance discounts
can encourage the use of mitigation measures. However, significant
challenges exist to implementing natural hazard mitigation activities.
Some of these challenges include the desire for local economic
development--often in hazard-prone areas--which may conflict with
long-term mitigation goals and the cost of mitigation may limit the amount
of activities that occur.

FEMA, other federal agencies, and nonfederal stakeholders have
collaborated on natural hazard mitigation, but the current approach is
fragmented and does not provide a comprehensive national strategic
framework for mitigation. Collaboration typically occurs on a
hazard-specific basis, after a disaster, or through informal methods. A
comprehensive framework would help define common national goals, establish
joint strategies, leverage resources, and assign responsibilities among
stakeholders.

Effect of a Hurricane on Neighboring Structures Built to Different
Versions of Building Codes

References

Visible links
  27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-285
  28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
  29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-570
  30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-285
  31. http://www.gao.gov/
  32. mailto:[email protected]
  33. http://www.nationalatlas.gov/
  34. mailto:[email protected]
  35. http://www.gao.gov/
  36. http://www.gao.gov/
  37. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  38. mailto:[email protected]
  39. mailto:[email protected]
  40. mailto:[email protected]
  41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-98-67
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
  43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-88
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-98-67
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-403
  46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-403
*** End of document. ***