This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-403 
entitled 'Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, 
but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework' 
which was released on September 24, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

August 2007: 

Natural Hazard Mitigation: 

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

Natural Hazard Mitigation: 

GAO-07-403: 

GAO Highlights: 

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

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The nation has experienced vast losses from natural hazards. The 
potential for future events, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, 
demonstrates the importance of hazard mitigation—actions that reduce 
the long-term risks to life and property from natural hazard events. 
GAO was asked to examine (1) natural hazards that present a risk to 
life and property in the United States, areas that are most susceptible 
to them, factors that may be increasing these risks, and mitigation 
activities that reduce losses; (2) methods for encouraging and 
impediments to implementing mitigation activities; and (3) 
collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to 
promote mitigation. 

To address these objectives, GAO collected and analyzed hazard data, 
reviewed population information, conducted site visits to locations 
with comprehensive mitigation programs, and collected information from 
relevant agencies and officials. 

What GAO Found: 

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

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

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

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Institute for Business & Home Safety. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

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

[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-403]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Orice Williams (202) 512-
8678 or williamso@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

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

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

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

A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a 
Comprehensive Strategic Framework for National Natural Hazard 
Mitigation Goals: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs: 

Figures: 

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

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

Figure 3: Counties That Face Medium to High Seismic Risk: 

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

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

Figure 6: Counties That Face Moderate to High Landslide Risk: 

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

Figure 8: Hurricane Straps in a Home under Construction: 

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

Abbreviations: 

BCEGS™: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule: 

CEA: California Earthquake Authority: 

CRS: Community Rating System: 

DMA 2000: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FMA: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program: 

HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: 

NEHRP: National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program: 

NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

PDM: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: 

RFC: Repetitive Flood Claims Program: 

SRL: Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program: 

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

August 22, 2007: 

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

Dear Mr. Bachus: 

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

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

Given the importance of natural hazard mitigation and its potential for 
reducing future losses caused by natural hazards, this report examines 
(1) natural hazards that present a risk to life and property in the 
United States, areas that are most susceptible to them, and factors 
that may be increasing these risks; (2) mitigation activities that 
reduce losses from natural hazards; (3) methods for encouraging and 
impediments to implementing mitigation activities; and (4) 
collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other stakeholders to 
promote mitigation. 

To identify the natural hazards that present a risk to life and 
property in the United States, we used a comprehensive list of natural 
hazards compiled by FEMA and collected and analyzed data on these 
hazards. Using these data, we created graphical representations for the 
hazards that represent large annual losses to the built environment and 
for which long-term mitigation activities exist. These hazards include 
floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildland fires, tornadoes, and 
landslides. We also reviewed population information and spoke with 
officials at several federal agencies to determine natural hazard risks 
on a national level and factors that may be increasing these risks. To 
address the remaining objectives, we conducted site visits to four 
judgmentally selected states. The states represent a variety of natural 
hazard risks and geographic locations, have comprehensive mitigation 
programs, or were recommended to us by mitigation experts or federal 
and state agency officials. We limited the mitigation strategies we 
reviewed to those that reduced or eliminated the long-term risk to 
people and property from the effects of natural hazards, whether these 
activities occurred before or after a natural hazard event. Programs 
and activities for preparing to respond in advance to natural hazard 
events (e.g., emergency response and training activities), responses to 
hazard events, and recovery from hazard events were outside the scope 
of our report. We also reviewed previous congressional reports and our 
prior reports and testimonies, policy and research documents, and 
reports and publications from the federal agencies involved in 
mitigation activities. Finally, we interviewed officials at five 
federal agencies--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers), 
FEMA, U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-- 
involved in mitigation activities, state and local emergency management 
officials, industry and professional associations, advocacy groups, 
building and land-use experts, and a risk modeling firm. 

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

Results in Brief: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: 

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

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

Table 1: FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs: 

Grant program: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); 
Description: Provides funds to communities to reduce or permanently 
eliminate future risk to lives and property from natural hazards. HMGP 
funds projects in accordance with priorities identified in state, 
tribal, or local hazard mitigation plans and enables mitigation 
measures to be implemented during recovery from a disaster; 
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): Approx. $581. 

Grant program: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM); 
Description: Provides funds to communities for hazard mitigation 
planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a 
disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks 
to life and property and the future cost of recovering from a disaster 
event; 
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $50. 

Grant program: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA); 
Description: Provides funds to communities to implement cost-effective 
measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to 
buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the 
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); 
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $28. 

Grant program: Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC); 
Description: Provides funds to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk 
of flood damage to structures insured under the NFIP that have had one 
or more claim payment(s) for flood damages. Eligibility is limited to 
those communities that cannot meet the requirements of the FMA program 
for various reasons; 
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $10. 

Grant program: Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program (SRL); 
Description: Provides funds to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk 
of flood damage to severe repetitive loss residential properties that 
are insured under the NFIP. Severe repetitive loss properties are 
residential properties that have incurred flood losses that resulted in 
either (1) four or more flood insurance claims payments that each 
exceeded $5,000, with at least two of the payments occurring within a 
10-year period or (2) two or more flood insurance claims payments that 
cumulatively exceed the value of the property; 
Fiscal year 2006 funding (millions): $40. 

Source: FEMA. 

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

[End of table] 

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

While FEMA's hazard mitigation responsibilities span all natural 
hazards, other federal agencies that participate in hazard mitigation 
primarily focus their efforts on particular hazards. Hazard mitigation 
activities conducted by other federal agencies include providing 
training, disseminating information, and conducting regional 
assessments. Many federal agencies have responsibilities related to 
natural hazard mitigation. Some of these agencies include the 
following: 

* USGS, within the Department of the Interior, is responsible for 
helping to reduce losses from hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, 
and volcanic eruptions. USGS provides scientific information that 
communities can use when developing plans for reducing losses 
associated with these hazards. Other agencies also rely on USGS 
information to help them fulfill their responsibilities regarding 
natural hazards. For example, NOAA's National Weather Service relies on 
USGS real-time streamflow information for developing flood forecasts 
and data from USGS-supported seismic networks as a primary input for 
tsunami warnings. 

* Five federal agencies--the Forest Service within the Department of 
Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land 
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service 
within the Department of the Interior--all work to minimize losses 
resulting from wildland fires. For example, these five agencies work to 
restore the health of the nation's forests and grasslands to increase 
resilience to the effects of wildland fires. 

* NOAA, within the Department of Commerce, focuses on the condition of 
the oceans and the atmosphere and conducts activities to reduce losses 
associated with natural hazards such as hurricanes, tornadoes, coastal 
flooding, and tsunamis. For instance, NOAA's National Weather Service 
routinely uses outreach, education, and planning to help communities 
mitigate these natural hazards. NOAA also works with coastal 
communities to provide financial, technical, and training support to 
develop more robust hazard mitigation and land-use plans and improve 
building code and design standards. 

* The Corps of Engineers builds flood damage reduction projects 
throughout the country. Typically these projects include levees, flood 
walls, channels, and small dams that help reduce losses associated with 
floods. Generally, communities fund a portion of the construction costs 
of the projects and agree to operate and maintain them. 

Although FEMA provides leadership for reducing the country's losses 
caused by natural hazards, it routinely collaborates with other federal 
agencies as well as state and local governments, among others. 
Collaboration is a tool that federal agencies use to work with one 
another and with various stakeholders, generally through partnerships 
with state and local governments and communities. In previous work, we 
identified key practices that could help enhance and sustain federal 
agency collaboration.[Footnote 8] These activities include (1) defining 
and articulating a common outcome; (2) establishing mutually 
reinforcing or joint strategies; (3) identifying and addressing needs 
by leveraging resources; (4) agreeing on roles and responsibilities; 
(5) establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means of 
operating across agency boundaries; (6) developing mechanisms to 
monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (7) reinforcing agency 
accountability for collaborative efforts; and (8) reinforcing 
individual accountability for collaborative efforts. 

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

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

Flooding Is the Most Widespread Hazard in the United States, but Other 
Hazards Affect Specific Regions: 

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

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data. 

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

[End of figure] 

Hurricanes typically produce violent winds, heavy rains, and storm 
surges and can result in flooding, coastal erosion, and ecological 
damage. While Florida has the greatest chance of experiencing a major 
hurricane (category 3 or higher), our analysis of NOAA data shows that 
states along the entire Atlantic coast, particularly North Carolina, 
the Gulf Coast states, and occasionally Hawaii are also at significant 
risk for hurricanes.[Footnote 11] Additionally, we found that 
approximately 29 percent of the U.S. population lived in a county that 
experienced at least one hurricane from 1980 through 2005. During this 
same time, counties in eight states--Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia--
experienced five or more hurricanes (fig. 2). Before 2005, Hurricane 
Andrew, which occurred in 1992, was the single most costly hurricane in 
terms of private insurer losses, causing $22.3 billion in losses (in 
2006 dollars).[Footnote 12] Comparatively, Hurricane Katrina caused 
$39.3 billion in private insurer losses (in 2006 dollars).[Footnote 13] 

Figure: Hurricane Saffir-Simpson Scale: 

A hurricane is a tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained 
surface wind speed (1 minute average) is 74 mph or greater. Hurricane 
intensity is measured on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane scale, which 
classifies hurricanes on a scale of 1 to 5, based on the sustained wind 
speed. Storm surge values depend on the slope of the continental shelf 
and shape of the coastline and are expressed as general estimates. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: NOAA. 

[End of figure] 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data. 

[End of figure] 

Earthquakes are a sudden slipping or movement of a portion of the 
earth's crust that releases energy in the form of seismic waves, which 
can cause shaking and damage over large distances. USGS has estimated 
that 39 states face significant earthquake risk. Our analysis showed 
that approximately 41 percent of the U.S. population resided in 
counties that face medium to high seismic risk. While the risk is 
concentrated on the West Coast, USGS states that Alaska is the most 
earthquake-prone state and one of the most seismically active regions 
in the world, experiencing a magnitude 7 earthquake almost every year 
and a magnitude 8 or greater earthquake every 14 years (on average). In 
addition to these areas, the New Madrid seismic zone (which is located 
in parts of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee) also 
faces medium to high seismic risk (fig. 3). Historically, some of the 
largest earthquakes in United States have been recorded along the New 
Madrid fault, and USGS predicts that the region has a 25 to 40 percent 
chance of experiencing a magnitude 6 or greater earthquake in the area 
in the next 50 years. Although earthquakes occur with less frequency in 
the eastern and central United States, according to USGS, a smaller 
magnitude earthquake in these regions would be just as damaging as a 
higher magnitude earthquake in the western United States. For example, 
according to USGS, because of geologic conditions, an earthquake in the 
east or central part of the country would be felt over a much larger 
area, and infrastructure in these regions is older and has not been 
built to withstand earthquake shaking. Similar to a hurricane, a single 
earthquake can cause great losses. For example, the 1994 earthquake in 
Northridge, California, caused approximately $59.8 billion in direct 
losses (in 2006 dollars). FEMA estimates future average annual 
earthquake losses in the United States at $5.6 billion a year. 

Table: Earthquake Magnitude and Intensity: 

Earthquake magnitude is a measure of the size of an earthquake and is 
based on ground motions recorded on seismographs. Intensity measures 
the strength of shaking produced by the earthquake at a certain 
location and is determined from effects on people, structures, and the 
natural environment. 

Magnitude: 1.0-2.9; 
Intensity: Effects: I: Not felt except by a very few. 

Magnitude: 3.0-3.9; 
Intensity: Effects: I: Felt only by a few persona at rest. III: Felt 
quite noticeably by persons indoors. 

Magnitude: 4.0-4.9; 
Intensity: Effects: IV: Felt indoors by many, outdoors by a few during 
the day; V: Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. 

Magnitude: 5.0-5.9; 
Intensity: Effects: VI: Felt by all. Damage slight. VII: Damage 
negligible in buildings of good design and constuction; considerable 
damage in poorly built or badly designed structures. 

Magnitude: 6.0-6.9; 
Intensity: Effects: VII: (see above); VIII: Damage slight in specially 
designed structures; damages great in poorly built structures. IX: 
Damage considerable in specially designed structures. Buildings shifted 
off foundations. 

Magnitude: 7.0 and higher; 
Intensity: Effects: VIII: (see above); IX : (see above); X: Some well-
built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures 
destroyed with foundations. XI: Few if any masonry structures remain 
standing. Bridges destroyed. XII: Total damage. 

Source: USGS. 

[End of table] 

Figure 3: Counties That Face Medium to High Seismic Risk: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of USGS data. 

[End of figure] 

Wildland fires, which can be triggered by lightning strikes or human 
activity, play an important ecological role in wildland areas. On 
average, 100,000 wildland fires are reported each year, but 95 percent 
are quickly extinguished. Fires that escape initial suppression can 
grow into large, high-intensity fires that burn quickly and can 
threaten structures in the wildland-urban interface--the area where 
structures and other development meet or intermingle with wildlands. 
According to our analysis, nearly 24 percent of the U.S. population 
lived in a county where a wildland fire burned over 1,000 acres from 
1980 through 2005. Figure 4, which shows the number of these large 
wildland fires, also shows that they are most likely to occur in 
western states and Florida. In eight western states--Arizona, 
California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming--over 
80 percent of the population lived in a county that experienced a 
wildland fire of over 1,000 acres during the 25-year period we 
analyzed. According to Forest Service officials, fires less than 1,000 
acres can be equally damaging to structures in other parts of the 
United States, especially in the eastern and southern regions of the 
country. Additionally, the officials noted that in some western regions 
of the country, some of the large wildland fires that occur play an 
important ecological role and may pose less of a threat to life and 
property because they occur in less populated areas. As we previously 
reported, wildland fires burned an average of 6.1 million acres per 
year between 2000 and 2004 and burned an average of about 850 homes 
each year since 1984.[Footnote 14] 

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

[See PDF for image] 

SOurce: GAO analysis of Desert Research Institute data. 

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

[End of figure] 

A tornado is a violently rotating column of air extending from a 
thunderstorm to the ground. The most violent tornadoes are capable of 
tremendous destruction, with damage paths as wide as a mile and as long 
as 50 miles. In an average year, about 1,000 tornadoes are reported 
across the United States. While tornadoes have been documented in every 
state, NOAA data show that the central states are most likely to 
experience the most severe tornadoes--those with wind speeds of 158 
miles per hour or greater.[Footnote 15] "Tornado Alley," an area 
covering a stretch of land from central Texas to northern Iowa and from 
central Kansas and Nebraska to western Ohio, has the highest tornado 
activity in the nation (fig. 5). Another significant zone of tornado 
frequency is the central southeast United States, including Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. From 1980 through 2004, five 
states--Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--each had one 
county that experienced five or more severe tornadoes. Tornadoes pose a 
significant risk to life, causing an average of 80 deaths and over 
1,500 injuries a year. Tornadoes can also be costly. For example, NOAA 
estimates that approximately once per decade, a devastating tornado in 
the United States has caused $1 billion or more in damages. 

Figure: Enhanced Fujita Tornado Scale: 

Tornadoes are classified on the 6-point Enhanced Fujita Tornado Damage 
Scale using estimates of wind speed based on the level of damage. The 
scale uses 3-second gusts estimated at the point of damage based on a 
judgment of eight levels of damage to different types of structures. 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: NOAA. 

[End of figure] 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of NOAA data. 

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

[End of figure] 

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

Figure 6: Counties That Face Moderate to High Landslide Risk: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of USGS data. 

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

[End of figure] 

Other hazards also present risk to portions of the United States. Some 
of these hazards, including thunderstorms, extreme heat, and winter 
storms can occur in most areas of the country. Tsunamis--a series of 
long waves generated by any large-scale disturbance of the sea--can 
occur in all U.S. coastal regions, but according to NOAA, the west 
coast, Alaska, and Hawaii are the most vulnerable.[Footnote 16] 
Although less frequent than other hazards in the United States, 
tsunamis are a significant natural hazard with great destructive 
potential. For example a 1964 Alaska tsunami led to 110 deaths, some as 
far away as Crescent City, California. In addition, according to USGS, 
in the past few hundred years volcanoes have erupted in Alaska, 
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.[Footnote 17] Since 1980, 45 
eruptions and 15 cases of notable volcanic unrest have occurred at 33 
U.S. volcanoes. 

In addition to the risk that an individual hazard poses, some hazards 
present multiple risks because they can cause another hazard to occur. 
For example, hurricanes often produce torrential rain that, in addition 
to causing floods, can trigger landslides or breach levees. Hurricanes 
can also damage trees in wildland areas, increasing wildland fire risk 
in these areas by creating fuel accumulation.[Footnote 18] Earthquakes 
can cause tsunamis, landslides, and flooding (e.g., due to levee 
failures). For example, the devastating December 2004 Indian Ocean 
tsunami was triggered by an earthquake. In addition, drought can 
contribute to wildland fires, which can induce other hazards, including 
floods and landslides. The degradation of soil in an area burned by a 
wildland fire prevents vegetation from growing back, including features 
that would hold the soil in place during heavy rains. Consequently, 
landslides are more likely to occur in burned areas. 

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

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

Additionally, the number of people living on the California coast grew 
by almost 10 million between 1980 and 2003, putting more people and 
property at risk from earthquake damage. Los Angeles County experienced 
the greatest increase in population of all coastal counties from 1980 
to 2003. A study on the potential damage that an earthquake could cause 
in downtown Los Angeles found that damages from such an event would 
likely fall between $82 billion and $252 billion.[Footnote 20] Other 
areas prone to natural hazards are also experiencing significant 
population growth and development. For example, many of the fastest- 
growing areas in the United States are in the wildland-urban interface, 
and development in these areas increases the threat of wildland fires. 
Experts estimate that between 1990 and 2000, 60 percent of all new 
housing units in the United States were built in the wildland-urban 
interface, and that in by 2000 about 38 percent of housing units 
overall were located in these areas. Additionally, urban growth in 
tornado-prone areas, which in many cases were previously sparsely 
populated, is increasing the chances that a tornado will hit a heavily 
developed area. For example, in February 2007, a series of tornadoes 
damaged over 1,500 homes in 4 central Florida counties, 2 of which have 
been among the 100 fastest-growing counties in the nation in recent 
years. 

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

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

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

Planning Efforts Can Help Reduce Losses from Natural Hazards: 

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

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

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

Communities also use other types of planning, such as capital 
improvement planning, which guides decisions on investing in new 
infrastructure and repairing and replacing existing infrastructure. 
Capital improvement planning can prevent damage to infrastructure by 
making sure it is not built in hazard-prone areas and requiring that 
existing infrastructure located in such areas be strengthened to 
provide additional resilience during natural hazards. Capital 
improvement plans can include activities such as raising bridge heights 
in flood-prone areas and improving the seismic strength of buildings at 
risk from earthquakes. Additionally, these plans can be used to guide 
development away from hazard-prone areas by, for example, not extending 
water and sewer lines and other utility services into these areas. 

California's history of earthquakes has focused attention on the need 
to strengthen the state's infrastructure against seismic risks. A 
seismic safety expert estimated that between 1989 and 2006, 
approximately $15 billion was spent on seismic improvements for 
utilities and transportation systems in the San Francisco Bay area. 
Some of these capital improvement examples include the following: 

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

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

* Seismic improvements have also been made for gas, electric, and water 
systems. 

Building Codes and Design Standards Can Lead to More Durable Structures 
That Provide Protection from Natural Hazards: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Institute for Business & Hone Safety. 

[End of figure] 

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

Figure 8: Hurricane Straps in a Home under Construction: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Institute for Business and Home Safety. 

[End of figure] 

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

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Institute for Business & Home Safety. 

[End of figure] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the exception of the flood mitigation grant programs, FEMA's grant 
programs generally do not specify the hazards that communities must 
mitigate or the types of activities they must undertake but instead 
leave these decisions to local communities. For example, in Oklahoma, 
state officials decided to focus their attention on saving lives during 
tornado events and developed the Safe Room Program.[Footnote 28] Using 
FEMA HMGP funds from a tornado event in 1999, the state offered refunds 
of up to $2,000 for home owners who built safe rooms in their homes. 
Some local community hazard mitigation officials with whom we met, 
however, said that the HMGP application process is complex and time and 
resource intensive, and that long delays can occur in receiving 
mitigation funds. Delays in receiving grant funds can lead to 
additional obstacles for local communities. One local mitigation 
official told us that delays in receiving grant funds prevents the city 
from being more cost-effective in terms of mitigation. She stated that 
it would be most effective to conduct mitigation activities immediately 
after a storm event, when damages are being repaired, rather than 
waiting for HMGP funds to become available. According to FEMA, while 
states have up to 1 year from the date of a disaster declaration to 
apply for HMGP funds, the approval process can begin much earlier 
following a disaster if state and local officials have previously 
identified viable mitigation projects that are consistent with state 
and local mitigation plans. 

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

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

A number of other federal agencies assist communities in reducing their 
risk to natural hazards. These agencies generally focus their programs 
on a specific hazard or hazardous area and work with communities to 
reduce their natural hazard risks. For example, at the federal level, 
five wildland fire management agencies work to manage losses resulting 
from wildland fires by providing grants or other kinds of assistance to 
help reduce fuels on private land.[Footnote 29] Through grant programs, 
these agencies provide funding to state forestry agencies and local 
fire departments for equipment, training, risk assessment, fire 
prevention work, and public information and education activities. 
Similarly, NOAA assists U.S. coastal states through financial and other 
types of assistance to protect the nation's coastal communities. By 
partnering with states and local authorities, NOAA helps communities 
conduct coastal hazards planning and administer state or local land-use 
programs that guide more prudent development in hazardous coastal 
areas. Other federal agencies offer a number of programs that can be 
used to address communities' natural hazard mitigation needs. For 
example, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development has flexibility to use Community Development Block Grant 
program funds when available to assist communities recovering in 
presidentially declared disaster areas. These activities can include 
the acquisition and reconstruction of properties damaged by a natural 
hazard event.[Footnote 30] 

State and local governments often have their own programs to promote 
mitigation that can operate alongside federal programs, including 
direct subsidies for mitigation activities and services that promote 
mitigation. Because state and local governments determine the types of 
programs they implement, the programs can be tailored to focus on a 
specific local hazard. Examples from communities we visited include the 
following: 

* The Florida Department of Financial Services operates the My Safe 
Florida Home Program to help Florida residents identify ways to 
strengthen their homes to reduce damages from hurricanes. The program 
offers a free home inspection to home owners that meet income and other 
eligibility requirements to help them identify appropriate mitigation 
techniques and provides matching grants of up to $5,000 to make the 
recommended mitigation improvements. 

* The city of Berkeley, California, encourages private property owners 
to conduct seismic retrofit activities by allowing property owners to 
use a portion of the transfer tax on the sale of a property to fund 
seismic retrofit work. If owners choose not to use this portion of the 
tax to fund retrofit activities for their property, this portion goes 
to the city. The city also subsidizes mitigation by waiving building 
permit fees on seismic retrofit projects. 

* The Boulder County Land Use Department assists home owners' 
associations by providing grants to conduct fuel management in 
neighborhoods that are at high risk from wildland fires. The grant 
recipients reduce their wildland fire risk by cutting tree limbs and 
clearing other debris from their properties, and the waste is chipped 
and used to heat county office buildings. 

Insurance Premium Discounts Can Encourage Some Communities and Home 
Owners to Undertake Mitigation Efforts: 

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

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

States and communities can also provide opportunities for property 
owners to receive insurance premium discounts by participating in the 
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS™) program, which 
was developed by ISO.[Footnote 32] Through the program, communities are 
assessed according to the building codes adopted in a community, 
amendments to the code, and how well the codes are enforced. The BCEGS™ 
program places particular emphasis on reducing losses caused by natural 
hazards, especially losses caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, and 
earthquakes. Once assessed, communities receive a BCEGS™ 
classification, which is provided to insurers to use as an underwriting 
tool. Insurance companies can voluntarily opt to use this information 
to offer rate discounts to property owners that live in these 
communities. According to the officials who developed the program, 
however, data are not available on the extent to which it is being used 
as an underwriting tool. The officials also commented that they do not 
believe many insurance companies are using it for this 
purpose.[Footnote 33] 

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

Public Education and Outreach Can Help Raise Awareness of Natural 
Hazards and Mitigation: 

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

A number of entities conduct education campaigns on natural hazards to 
a variety of audiences--the public, home owners, business owners, 
builders, and developers. For example, the Firewise Communities 
program, which is made up of nongovernmental organizations and federal 
agencies, educates home owners about steps they can take to protect 
their homes from wildland fires and state and local officials about 
steps they can take to help educate home owners.[Footnote 36] The 
program is also used to educate developers who are building homes in 
the wildland-urban interface about the various landscaping and other 
mitigation features that can be incorporated into developments to help 
reduce the risk of damage due to wildland fires. In addition to large 
national programs, we observed a variety of different public education 
campaigns at the state and local level during our field work. For 
example: 

* The city of Deerfield Beach, Florida, created a nonprofit 
organization to educate city residents on how to mitigate hurricane 
risks. The nonprofit is based in the Disaster Survival House, a home 
that was built by a major insurance company and donated to the city to 
show how a house can be built to withstand a catastrophic hurricane. 
The house serves as an educational center for schoolchildren and the 
public and as a showcase of building techniques and mitigation measures 
for builders and home owners. 

* Tulsa, Oklahoma, conducts an annual public outreach campaign using 
information displays and brochures that are placed throughout the area 
in fast food restaurants. The brochures outline hazards that pose a 
risk to the community, such as tornadoes, floods, and wildland fires 
and provide information on how individuals can protect themselves and 
their property. 

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

Conflicting Interests Can Impede Local Mitigation Efforts: 

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

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

Costs Concerns May Hinder Mitigation Efforts: 

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

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

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

For existing buildings, the high cost of retrofitting has also been 
cited as an impediment to implementing mitigation measures. In 1986, 
California enacted a law that required local governments in high 
seismic regions to inventory unreinforced masonry buildings, that were 
known to perform poorly during earthquakes and to establish a program 
for reducing losses from these buildings.[Footnote 40] According to an 
estimate prepared by a California Seismic Safety Commission structural 
engineer, about two-thirds of over 25,000 unreinforced masonry 
buildings that have been inventoried in California have been 
retrofitted or demolished. However, about 8,000 buildings in high 
seismic regions have not been retrofitted, primarily because of the 
high cost of retrofitting. For example, the cost to retrofit an average-
size 10,000-square-foot building is about $400,000. As a result, some 
buildings that do not generate sufficient income to pay for the cost of 
retrofitting have been left vacant. Further, a study that assessed the 
risks and losses of potential earthquakes in the New York, New Jersey, 
and Connecticut region determined that retrofitting thousands of 
buildings in New York would be "impractical and economically 
unrealistic."[Footnote 41] This decision was made despite the fact that 
New York City faces moderate seismic risk and contains a large number 
of unreinforced masonry buildings used primarily as housing or for 
commercial purposes. In 1995, New York City passed its first seismic 
building code, which will help to ensure that new construction meets 
these standards. However, because these standards do not apply to 
buildings built prior to 1995, even a moderate earthquake could cause 
much damage to the existing building stock. 

Lack of Rigorous Building Code Enforcement Impedes Hazard Mitigation: 

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

Limited Public Awareness Constrains Mitigation Activities: 

Efforts to adopt new mitigation activities and strategies have been 
constrained by the general public's lack of awareness and understanding 
about natural hazards and risk. Individuals often also have a 
misperception that natural hazard events will not occur in their 
community and are not interested in learning of the likelihood of an 
event occurring. For example, in California--where public perceptions 
of natural hazard risk are high--some mitigation measures have been 
implemented, such as strengthening transit systems, bridges, and 
highways. However, in other parts of the country, where seismic risk is 
high but damaging earthquakes occur less frequently (e.g., New Madrid 
seismic zone), public awareness of the risk is lower, and fewer 
mitigation measures are in place. Additionally, land-use experts and 
mitigation officials told us that it is often difficult for the public 
to perceive natural hazard risk or believe that a natural hazard event 
will occur in their community. However, public skepticism is 
significantly reduced immediately following natural hazard events, and 
mitigation activities are often conducted during such periods--for 
example, the adoption of more stringent building codes after Hurricane 
Katrina and the seismic retrofitting requirements approved after major 
earthquakes in California. 

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

A Number of Collaboration Efforts Exist but Do Not Provide a 
Comprehensive Strategic Framework for National Natural Hazard 
Mitigation Goals: 

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

Some Collaboration Exists among Mitigation Stakeholders: 

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

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

* The National Landslide Hazards Mitigation Strategy, which was 
developed in 2003 by USGS, recognized that while there are many 
stakeholders involved in landslide mitigation in the United States, 
there is little collaboration of mitigation activities.[Footnote 43] 
The strategy recommends that collaboration be improved among federal, 
state, and local agencies in order to (1) establish more effective 
partnerships with the academic and private sectors and (2) better 
leverage resources. To eliminate duplication of efforts, the strategy 
names the federal agencies responsible for leading each activity--a key 
practice in collaboration. The strategy addresses the need for 
increased public awareness and education about landslides and names 
FEMA and USGS as the agencies responsible for leading the development 
of information and education programs. 

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

* The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is an 
interagency program created to reduce risks to life and property in the 
United States that result from earthquakes.[Footnote 46] In 2004, 
Congress established the Interagency Coordinating Committee to plan, 
manage, and coordinate the NEHRP.[Footnote 47] This committee consists 
of FEMA, USGS, the National Science Foundation, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and, as the lead 
agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The 
agencies are working together to develop a NEHRP strategic plan and a 
coordinated interagency budget. The program also seeks to improve 
earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods. Each 
agency's mission, although separate and distinct, has been integrated 
into a complementary program that seeks to promote earthquake 
mitigation. 

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

Third, agency officials said that they also use a variety of informal 
mechanisms to collaborate on their mitigation activities. These 
officials discussed frequent, informal communication such as e-mails, 
teleconferences, and discussions at regional or local conferences or 
workshops that occurs on specific projects or initiatives. For example, 
FEMA officials said that officials from other agencies such as the 
Departments of Transportation and Energy frequently consult with FEMA 
staff on flood mitigation in compliance with an executive order on 
floodplain management.[Footnote 50] NOAA agency officials also 
commented that collaboration occurs when agency officials assist in 
conducting training for other federal agencies. For example, the 
National Weather Service provides guest instructors for a week-long 
FEMA training course for emergency managers. 

Finally, federal agencies collaborate through partnerships with local 
government leaders, volunteer groups, the business community, and 
individual citizens to implement mitigation activities. Several state 
and local officials with whom we spoke cited Project Impact--one of 
FEMA's previous predisaster mitigation programs--as a model in helping 
to develop broad community support for predisaster mitigation 
activities.[Footnote 51] Local officials from each of the former 
Project Impact communities that we visited emphasized that the strength 
of the original public-private partnerships formed during Project 
Impact was a key reason their communities' mitigation efforts have been 
sustainable. The program provided small, one-time grants directly to 
communities and empowered leaders in those communities to build 
effective partnerships and encourage private sector financial 
participation before disasters occurred. For example, Deerfield Beach, 
Florida--the first Project Impact community--established a program that 
created partnerships with FEMA, IBHS, and four local lending 
institutions to provide interest free loans from local banks to help 
community businesses conduct wind resistance mitigation activities, 
such as installing impact-resistant glass and shutters, to reduce the 
effects of high winds. 

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

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

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

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina 
Reform Act), requires major changes to FEMA that are designed to 
increase the effectiveness of preparedness and response to catastrophic 
disasters.[Footnote 56] The act defines emergency management as "the 
governmental function that coordinates and integrates all activities 
necessary to build, sustain, and improve the capability to prepare for, 
protect against, respond to, recover from, or mitigate against 
threatened or actual natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-
made disasters."[Footnote 57] Moreover, the act defines FEMA's primary 
mission as reducing the loss of life and property "by leading and 
supporting the nation in a risk-based comprehensive emergency 
management system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and 
mitigation."[Footnote 58] 

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

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

Conclusions: 

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

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

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

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

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Orice M. Williams: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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

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

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

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

* Hurricanes - We obtained data on historical hurricane tracks from the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Coastal 
Service Center, which show the track for the eye of a hurricane, to 
develop the hurricane hazard map. In order to identify counties 
affected by a hurricane, we used a buffer of 50 miles around the data 
representing the eye of a hurricane. The 50-mile estimate was based on 
29 miles for the eye of the storm and an additional 21 miles for the 
outer area of high winds. This is roughly equivalent to NOAA's 
terminology of a hurricane "strike" or "near strike." 

* Earthquakes - We obtained data representing seismic risk from the 
U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping 
Project. Risk is depicted as acceleration value. Areas with a value of 
less than 5 were considered low risk, 5 to 15 as medium risk, and over 
15 as high risk. 

* Wildland fires - We used the Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data 
maintained by the Desert Research Institute to represent wildland fire 
risk. These data are based on information compiled by the U.S. Forest 
Service (Forest Service), Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Some 
records in the database were missing latitudinal and longitudinal 
information. Therefore, our map only includes fires for which this 
information was available. 

* Tornadoes - We obtained historical tornado data from the NOAA's 
National Weather Service that are available for download from 
[hyperlink, http://www.NationalAtlas.gov]. We limited our analysis to 
tornado events with an F3 (severe) or higher level as measured on the 
Fujita Scale, because F3 or higher tornadoes cause significant property 
damage. Not all records in the database included latitude and longitude 
information; therefore, our map only includes those tornadoes for which 
latitude and longitude data were available. Additionally, data were 
only available through 2004. 

* Landslides - We obtained data representing the susceptibility and 
incidence of landslides from USGS. We used USGS' classification of 
areas of high and moderate risk and overlaid it with county data. 
Counties that contained areas of both high and moderate risk were 
reclassified as "combination of high and moderate risk." 

We also reviewed the annual losses associated with some of these 
natural hazards, when data were available, and factors that may be 
increasing natural hazard risk. As there is no comprehensive source of 
loss information for natural hazards, we used estimates developed by 
the federal agencies responsible for overseeing each natural hazard. We 
adjusted the loss estimates from some historical hazard events to 2006 
dollars using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers. To 
identify factors that may be increasing natural hazard risks, we 
reviewed 2000 U.S. Census data, population information, and studies on 
climatology. We also reviewed previous congressional reports and our 
reports and spoke with officials at several federal, state, and local 
agencies. 

To examine the mitigation activities that exist to reduce losses from 
natural hazards and the performance of these activities, we conducted 
site visits to four judgmentally selected states including--California, 
Colorado, Florida, and Oklahoma. We selected the locations based on the 
following criteria: (1) the locations represent a variety of natural 
hazard risks and geographic locations; (2) Florida and Oklahoma have 
Enhanced State Hazard Mitigation Plans and, therefore, comprehensive 
mitigation programs, and California has an Enhanced State Hazard 
Mitigation Plan that is pending FEMA approval; and (3) mitigation 
experts and federal agency officials recommended locations to visit 
within these states. In each of these states, we met with state and 
local officials to discuss mitigation activities that had been 
undertaken or are planned, and examples of the performance of some of 
the activities. Many of the local communities we visited were part of 
FEMA's former Project Impact program. We also visited the Natural 
Hazards Research Center in Boulder, Colorado to review an extensive 
collection of research on natural hazards. Additionally, we reviewed 
FEMA's Best Practices and Case Studies Portfolio; prior GAO reports; 
state and local hazard mitigation plans submitted to FEMA under DMA 
2000; and numerous other reports, summaries, and studies on natural 
hazard mitigation activities. We also discussed the types of existing 
mitigation activities with officials from federal agencies that oversee 
natural hazard mitigation programs, and with mitigation and planning 
experts. In addition, we met with industry, nonprofit, and professional 
organizations; model building code organizations; an insurance services 
company; and a risk modeling firm to discuss the variety of mitigation 
methods that exist. 

To examine impediments that exist to the implementation of mitigation 
activities and methods used to promote mitigation, we reviewed 
congressional reports, our previous reports and testimonies, and 
background documents related to each of the natural hazards within the 
scope of our review. These included policy and research documents on 
floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, and landslides, 
as well as documents on other natural hazards. We also gathered and 
analyzed information, documents, reports, and publications from each of 
the federal agencies we contacted, including FEMA, USGS, NOAA, the 
Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. In addition, we reviewed 
information provided by professional associations, advocacy groups, 
nonprofit organizations, and knowledgeable individuals from the 
academic and research communities, such as the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, the American Planning Association, Wildlife 
Federation, and the University of Colorado at Boulder. To examine the 
various approaches used to encourage mitigation, we conducted 
interviews, conference calls, and site visits with federal, state, and 
local officials and members of the academic community to obtain 
detailed information and specific examples of methods used to promote 
mitigation. 

To examine collaborative efforts of federal agencies and other 
stakeholders to promote mitigation, we conducted literature reviews of 
prior reports on natural hazard mitigation, land-use, research, and 
policy documents from federal, state, and local government agencies, 
and documentation from nongovernmental stakeholders. We also reviewed 
our previous reports on federal agency collaboration and summarized the 
results of these reports to identify elements for effective 
collaboration among federal agencies and between federal agencies and 
nonfederal participants. In addition, we consulted with individuals 
knowledgeable about natural hazards, mitigation, and the role of 
federal agencies in promoting collaboration on natural hazard 
mitigation activities. To examine ways federal agencies and nonfederal 
participants collaborate on mitigation we interviewed federal officials 
involved in mitigation-related activities, state and local officials, 
and industry association representatives. To identify the federal 
agencies that play key roles in natural hazard mitigation, we 
considered federal agencies that promote mitigation through (1) hazard 
mitigation grant programs; (2) technical assistance; (3) regional risk 
assessments, including mapping of hazard risk; (4) information 
dissemination; and (5) programs that specifically target the reduction 
of risks caused by natural hazards. We also determined that it was not 
feasible to include all federal agencies that play a role in mitigation 
within the scope of this review and excluded agencies that play 
supplementary, support, and/or secondary roles in natural hazard 
mitigation. Based on these considerations, we subsequently contacted 
five federal agencies as part of this review, including FEMA, NOAA, 
USGS, the Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

Homeland Security: 

August 9, 2007: 

Ms. Orice Williams: 
Director, Financial Markets And Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D. C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Williams: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office report Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various 
Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a 
Comprehensive Strategic Framework, GAO 07-403. 

General Comments 

Floodplain Management - The report does not adequately reflect the 
extent to which the floodplain management requirements, associated with 
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), have become established 
across the nation and make a difference. It is estimated there are $1.2 
billion dollars of losses avoided annually because of NFIP floodplain 
management activities. Not only are there 20,300 communities 
participating in the NFIP (which is mentioned) but there is a vibrant 
network of local and state officials who are on the "front lines" 
making permit decisions that reduce the impact of flooding on a daily 
basis. It would seem the report might want to highlight this success, 
without dwelling on it. In fact, the creation of the network of 
mitigation professionals (as you know, largely due to the efforts of 
the associations of state floodplain managers (ASFPM) and the Emergency 
Management Institute's training programs) is a very effective 
"framework", if not model, that might be replicated to address other 
hazards. While there are some compliance issues, floodplain management 
is entrenched. Over 20,000 communities have floodplain management 
ordinances. There is an abundance of technical resources and guidance 
materials. The authors might want to capture this, possibly even in the 
context of "what can we learn" from the floodplain management approach 
to mitigation. 

CRS Community Rating System – Details/accomplishments/history should be 
laid out and summarized in the beginning of the audit report.

The following is our response to the recommendation. 

Recommendation: 

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

Response: 

FEMA is in agreement with most of the recommendation and conclusions of 
the report. FEMA supports the setting of a national comprehensive 
strategic framework and setting common mitigation goals. FEMA disagrees 
with setting performance measures and reporting requirements on a 
process that largely occurs at local levels of government. Local 
communities are responsible for making most mitigation decisions with 
respect to identifying risks in their communities and setting hazard 
mitigation priorities that mitigate those risks. It would he 
inappropriate for FEMA, or any other Federal entity, to dictate 
mitigation direction at the local level, outside of ensuring that 
mitigation plans and grant applications meet essential eligibility 
requirements as defined by authorizing statutes and regulations. FEMA 
recommends that trend analysis and progress reporting toward goals is 
more appropriate to measure the success of a comprehensive strategic 
mitigation framework. 

The Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) of the Committee on 
Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology 
Council, was created to, among other things, "establish clear national 
goals for Federal science and technology investments for disaster 
reduction" and to "identify and coordinate opportunities for the U.S. 
Government to collaborate with state, local, and foreign governments, 
international organizations and private/academic/industry groups in the 
science and technology of disaster reduction."[Footnote 59] The role 
the SDR is to coordinate the scientific and technical aspects of risk 
identification and risk reduction across the Federal government. FEMA 
See Charter of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, Committee on 
Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology 
Council. fully participates in the SDR, which accomplishes several of 
the objectives identified in the report's recommendation. 

Once again we thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report 
and provide comments.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 
 
[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior: 

Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, D.C. 20240: 

August 3, 2007: 

Mr. Andy Finkel: 
Assistant Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Finkel: 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (DOI) with the 
opportunity to review the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
draft report entitled, "Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation 
Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not Provide a Comprehensive 
Strategic Framework" (Report Number GAO-07-403). 

The GAO staff is to be commended for conducting a well-researched 
examination of the Nation's natural hazard mitigation efforts. The 
draft report provides a good summary of selected issues relating to 
natural hazards within the United States and some of the planning and 
mitigation efforts to reduce the risk of losses. 

We agree with the need for a comprehensive strategy and wish to 
emphasize the importance of such a strategy being built collectively by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency in equal partnership with other 
agencies that have a clear natural disaster role. We are pleased to see 
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) recognized as 
an example of how Federal agencies work together to create a hazard-
specific strategy to reduce losses from earthquakes and to collaborate 
on mitigation activities after a disaster. This partnership is a model 
that could be used in addressing the report's major recommendations. 
NEHRP reaches across Federal agencies and into States to foster 
mitigation activities, from community–level predisaster mitigation to 
national-scale post-disaster coordination. NEHRP also provides clear 
economic incentives (in the form of building codes) for mitigation 
activities, something the report cites as a general limitation of 
Federal programs. 

Consistent with the report's recommendations, the USGS recently 
launched a multi-hazard monitoring, assessment, research and 
coordination demonstration project in Southern California. This project 
promises to serve as a test case for multi-hazard assessment and 
coordination that can be applied in other regions. The project relies 
heavily on local partnerships to transform results into practice, a key 
need identified in the report. 

In concluding that the current approach to institutional collaboration 
on natural hazard mitigation does not provide a comprehensive 
mitigation framework for the Nation, it would be helpful if the report 
identified the challenges associated with developing such a national 
framework. It would also be helpful for GAO to examine which programs 
have delivered the best value in mitigation and where the greatest 
strides in mitigation could be made if we dedicated ourselves to the 
effort. As further context, the report could address whether other 
nations have developed national frameworks for mitigation that can 
provide good examples. 

The report mentions new reforms such as the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act of 2006 that take an all-hazards approach to 
emergency management, but it would benefit from describing how such 
reforms address the report's recommendations and what other efforts are 
needed. Finally, we note the draft report focuses mainly on losses of 
life and property, but it is important to recognize the impact of 
social, agricultural, and environmental losses in addressing total 
losses. 

We hope these comments will aid you in preparing the final report. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

James E. Cason: 
Associate Deputy Secretary: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Orice Williams, (202) 512-8678 or williamso@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9] Following a disaster, and upon the request of a state governor, the 
President may issue a major disaster declaration that triggers a range 
of assistance from federal agencies. See 42 U.S.C. § 5170. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21] GAO-07-285. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[30] See 42 U.S.C. § 5321; 24 C.F.R. pt. 570. 

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

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

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

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

[35] Cal. Ins. Code § 10089.40(d). 

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

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

[38] See Cal. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 2690 et seq; Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 
14, §§ 3270 et seq. 

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

[40] Cal. Gov't Code §§ 8875 et seq. 

[41] Tantala, M., Nordenson G., et al, "Earthquake Risks and Mitigation 
in the New York | New Jersey | Connecticut Region," NYCEM, The New York 
City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation, Final Summary 
Report, MCEER-03-SP02, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake 
Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, 2003. 

[42] GAO-06-15. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[51] Project Impact was one of FEMA's predisaster mitigation programs 
that began in 1997 and ended in fiscal year 2002. It was replaced by 
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[59] See Charter of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, Committee 
on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology 
Council. 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

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

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov (202) 512-4800: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: