This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1035 
entitled 'Hazard Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard 
Mitigation Programs Present Challenges' which was released on October 
15, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security, 

Proliferation, and Federal Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate:



September 2002:



HAZARD MITIGATION:



Proposed Changes to FEMA’s Multihazard Mitigation Programs Present 

Challenges:



GAO-02-1035:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



FEMA’s Multihazard Mitigation Programs Differ Substantially and Both 

Are Seen to Have Many Successful Attributes:



Proposed Program to Eliminate HMGP and Make Grants Nationally 

Competitive Has Raised Participation and Implementation Concerns:



Heightened Homeland Security Concerns Present Challenges for Conducting 

Hazard Mitigation Activities:



Concluding Observations:



Agency Comments:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Appendix II: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sum of Federal Share

FYs 1996 through 2001:



Appendix III: Project Impact Communities:



Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Management Agency:



Figures:



Figure 1: Disaster Relief Fund Expenditures and Number of Declared 

Disasters, Fiscal Years 1978-2001:



Figure 2: Projects Undertaken With HMGP Funding:



Figure 3: Projects Undertaken with Project Impact:



Abbreviations:



FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:



HMGP: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program:



DHS: Department of Homeland Security:



NEMA: National Emergency Management Association:



Letter September 30, 2002:



The Honorable Daniel Akaka

Chairman, Subcommittee on International

Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate:



Dear Mr. Chairman:



Over the past 12 years, federal disaster assistance costs have totaled 

more than $39 billion (in fiscal year 2001 dollars)--a nearly fivefold 

increase over the previous 12-year period--as a result of a series of 

unusually large and frequent disasters and an increasing federal role 

in assisting communities and individuals affected by disasters. This 

commitment to federal disaster assistance is continuing, as $4 billion 

in disaster assistance costs are expected for fiscal year 2002, in part 

due to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and their impact. The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the lead agency for 

providing federal disaster relief, has provided the bulk of the 

assistance to help those in need respond to and recover from disasters. 

As the costs for disaster assistance have risen, FEMA has made disaster 

mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-term cost 

of disasters and has developed mitigation programs designed to minimize 

risk to property or individuals from natural or man-made hazards. The 

most significant of these mitigation programs are the postdisaster 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the predisaster Project 

Impact program.[Footnote 1] These are FEMA’s sole multihazard programs 

aimed at helping states and communities identify and address natural 

hazard risks they deem most significant. From fiscal year 1996 through 

2001, FEMA obligated about $2.3 billion for these programs.



Some criticism has emerged in recent years about the impact of these 

FEMA programs. In response, the administration--in FEMA’s 2003 fiscal 

year budget request--has proposed changes to the multihazard mitigation 

programs that are intended to improve the effectiveness of mitigation 

efforts. These changes would combine the programs into a single 

predisaster mitigation program that awards grants for mitigation 

activities on a nationwide, competitive basis. In addition, the recent 

proposals to expand federal programs and funding to enhance national 

preparedness and to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

and move FEMA into the department may also affect the overall conduct 

and content of disaster mitigation programs.



As agreed with your office, this report addresses the following 

objectives:



* What are the characteristics of FEMA’s current multihazard mitigation 

programs, and what do states perceive as these programs’ most 

successful features?



* How would the proposed program change FEMA’s current approach to 

mitigation, and what are some of the concerns that have been raised 

about this proposal?



* What are the issues resulting from the increased federal focus on 

homeland security on conducting hazard mitigation efforts?



To address these issues, we analyzed national HMGP and Project Impact 

data, program guidance, and available studies that evaluated these 

programs. Additionally, we discussed the current programs, as well as 

the new mitigation program outlined in the fiscal year 2003 budget 

proposal, with emergency management officials in FEMA’s headquarters 

and three FEMA regional offices (Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; 

and Denver, Colorado). In addition, we interviewed state hazard 

mitigation officials from 24 states within 4 FEMA regions (Regions IV, 

V, VII, and VIII) to obtain their perspectives on the current FEMA 

mitigation programs and on the administration’s proposal for a new 

mitigation program. These states have experienced a varied range of 

disasters; consequently, the state mitigation officials represent a 

wide range of experience with federal hazard mitigation programs. We 

also conducted site visits in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina 

because these states have a wide variety of pre-and postdisaster 

mitigation projects and are very active in both the HMGP and Project 

Impact program. Further, we examined and assessed information on state 

and local preparedness, intergovernmental relations, and issues 

associated with the establishment of DHS that was available through 

other work we have recently conducted. See appendix I for more details 

on our scope and methodology.



Results in Brief:



FEMA’s multihazard mitigation programs differ substantially in how they 

have sought to reduce the risks from hazards but each has features that 

the state emergency management community believes have been successful 

for mitigation. The HMGP, FEMA’s oldest and largest multihazard 

mitigation program, is a postdisaster program that has provided the 

bulk of mitigation assistance to states and communities. Through the 

HMGP, states and communities that have experienced a presidentially 

declared disaster receive funds primarily to implement “brick and 

mortar” projects such as retrofitting structures or acquiring and 

relocating structures from hazard-prone areas. State mitigation 

officials view the HMGP as a highly successful means for achieving 

mitigation because commitment to undertake mitigation efforts is 

greatest in the aftermath of a disaster, and the HMGP takes advantage 

of this “window of opportunity.” FEMA has used its more recent and 

smaller predisaster Project Impact program to provide funding directly 

to communities in every state, regardless of whether the state had 

recently experienced a disaster. Communities have used Project Impact 

in large measure on planning and outreach activities designed to (1) 

help educate the public and promote mitigation, (2) assess risks and 

identify potential mitigation projects, and (3) build partnerships and 

leverage resources. State and local officials also said that Project 

Impact has been successful in increasing awareness of and community 

support for mitigation efforts due to its funding of these types of 

activities.



The proposed new mitigation program would fundamentally change FEMA’s 

approach by eliminating the postdisaster HMGP and by funding mitigation 

activities on a nationally competitive basis. The administration 

believes that the new program will ensure that mitigation funding 

remains stable from year to year and that the most cost-beneficial 

projects receive funding. The proposal has raised concerns about 

whether participation in mitigation activities might decrease and about 

how FEMA might implement the program. Specifically, there are concerns 

that (1) FEMA might not be able to take advantage of interest in 

participating in mitigation activities that often emerges after a 

disaster has struck, (2) some states might be entirely excluded from 

mitigation funding, (3) outreach and planning activities that help 

increase participation in mitigation might be curtailed, and (4) FEMA 

might face challenges, such as establishing a process for comparing the 

costs and benefits of projects, in implementing the new program. FEMA 

officials have stated that they would attempt to address these concerns 

if legislation authorizing the new program is enacted.



The heightened focus on homeland security has raised several issues 

related to the conduct of hazard mitigation activities. Foremost among 

these issues is whether the increased emphasis on preventing and 

preparing for terrorism events will result in less focus on natural 

hazard mitigation concerns. Some are concerned that nonsecurity 

functions, such as hazard mitigation, will receive decreased emphasis. 

Additionally, the role and relationship of predisaster mitigation 

programs to proposed new preparedness efforts are uncertain and 

potentially overlapping. Finally, if the HMGP program is continued, it 

is not clear how its mitigation funds can be effectively used to reduce 

the risk of terrorism damage and associated hardship, loss, and 

suffering.



We provided a draft copy of this report to FEMA for its review. The 

FEMA Director, in commenting on the report, generally agreed with the 

information presented and noted that the report supports his belief 

that both pre-and postdisaster mitigation programs are critical to 

FEMA’s success in reducing disaster losses. Additionally, the Director 

stated that the expertise the agency has developed in natural hazard 

mitigation is clearly applicable to the homeland security mission, and 

FEMA looked forward to addressing the opportunities presented by the 

proposal to include it in the new Department of Homeland Security. FEMA 

also provided some technical comments that we considered and 

incorporated in the report where appropriate.



Background:



Following a disaster, and upon the request of a state governor, the 

President may issue a major disaster declaration that triggers a range 

of assistance from federal agencies. Under the provisions of the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the federal 

government will assist disaster-stricken states and communities in 

their efforts to help those in need, remove debris, and rebuild damaged 

structures, among other things. The costs for this federal disaster 

assistance have grown significantly since the late 1980s. During the 

12-year period ending in 1989, the expenditures from FEMA’s disaster 

relief fund totaled about $7 billion (in fiscal year 2001 dollars). 

However, during the following 12-year period ending in 2001, as the 

number of large, costly disasters has grown and the activities eligible 

for federal assistance have increased, expenditures from the disaster 

relief fund increased nearly fivefold to over $39 billion (in fiscal 

year 2001 dollars). Figure 1 shows the annual amounts spent for 

disaster relief and the number of disasters from fiscal years 1978 to 

2001.



Figure 1: Disaster Relief Fund Expenditures and Number of Declared 

Disasters, Fiscal Years 1978-2001:



[See PDF for image]



Note: Annual amounts are expressed in terms of expenditures for 

disaster relief activities, not in terms of amounts appropriated by the 

Congress for disaster assistance. There is generally a period of time 

between when funds are appropriated and when actual disaster relief 

costs are incurred and funds expended. Disaster relief fund 

expenditures are in fiscal year 2001 dollars.



Source: FEMA.



[End of figure]



Disaster assistance costs are expected to remain high in 2002, in part 

as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. According to 

FEMA’s projections, disaster assistance expenditures from the disaster 

relief fund in fiscal year 2002 will total more than $4 billion.



FEMA has been designated the lead agency for the nation’s emergency 

management system, and traditionally the agency has directed its 

efforts towards disaster response and recovery. It also helps state and 

local governments prepare for possible disaster events. However, as 

costs for disaster assistance have increased, the agency has placed 

increasing emphasis on disaster mitigation, defined by FEMA as 

sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people 

and property from hazards and their effects. In fact, FEMA has made 

disaster mitigation a primary goal in its efforts to reduce the long-

term cost of disasters. Among the most significant of these programs 

are the HMGP and the Project Impact program. These programs are FEMA’s 

sole multihazard mitigation programs, helping states and communities 

address the natural hazards and risks--such as earthquakes, floods, 

tornadoes, and hurricanes--they deem most significant. Together, these 

programs represent FEMA’s most substantial mitigation efforts in terms 

of expenditures, state and community involvement, and scope of 

activities funded. Other mitigation programs FEMA conducts, although 

not insignificant, address specific concerns, such as dam safety, 

fires, and flooding, and are funded at relatively low levels.



The Congress has also recognized the benefits of mitigation, and as 

recently as 2000 passed legislation to establish a national mitigation 

program. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 sought to (1) reduce the 

loss of life and property, economic disruption, and disaster assistance 

cost resulting from natural disaster and (2) provide a source of 

predisaster mitigation funding that will assist states and local 

governments in implementing effective hazard mitigation measures. The 

act provided authorization legislation for Project Impact’s predisaster 

mitigation activities, and established a funding formula under which 

communities in all states would participate and receive funding. The 

act also placed an emphasis on mitigation planning: it authorized the 

use of HMGP funds for planning purposes and increased by one-third the 

HMGP funding for states that meet enhanced planning criteria.



Recently, however, proposals have been made that may significantly 

affect the mitigation programs conducted by FEMA. The administration 

has proposed a substantial change to FEMA’s multihazard mitigation 

programs. The proposal, as contained in FEMA’s fiscal year 2003 budget 

request, would eliminate the HMGP and establish a new $300 million 

program for predisaster mitigation. The program would also award grants 

on a nationwide, competitive basis that is significantly different from 

the formula-based grant process in the existing programs. The House and 

Senate have both proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security 

that would subsume FEMA as a part of the department. If enacted as 

currently proposed, all the activities of FEMA--both those that are 

security related and those, such as natural hazard mitigation programs, 

which are nonsecurity related--would transfer to the department. 

Further, the federal government is taking a more expanded role in state 

and local government disaster prevention and preparedness efforts, and 

it is initiating more activities--and providing more funding--for 

predisaster assistance, with a substantial focus on terrorism. In this 

regard, numerous legislative proposals are being considered that 

increase planning requirements and funding to prepare for and prevent 

future terrorist attacks.



FEMA’s Multihazard Mitigation Programs Differ Substantially and Both 

Are Seen to Have Many Successful Attributes:



FEMA’s multihazard mitigation programs differ substantially and have 

many successful attributes according to state and local officials. The 

HMGP, FEMA’s oldest and largest multihazard mitigation program, is a 

postdisaster program that has provided the bulk of mitigation 

assistance provided to states and communities. Through the HMGP, states 

and communities that have experienced a presidentially declared 

disaster receive funds to implement cost-effective mitigation projects. 

States and communities have used these funds primarily to implement 

“brick and mortar” projects such as retrofitting structures or 

acquiring and relocating structures from hazard-prone areas. The HMGP 

is viewed as highly effective because it provides funding in the 

aftermath of a disaster--when state and local governments as well as 

individuals have a heightened interest in participating in mitigation 

activities. As a result, states and local communities have been able to 

fund critical mitigation projects in these periods. FEMA has used its 

more recent and smaller predisaster Project Impact program to provide 

mitigation assistance directly to communities in every state, 

regardless of whether the state had recently experienced a disaster. 

Communities have used Project Impact in large measure on planning and 

outreach activities designed to (1) help educate the public and promote 

mitigation, (2) assess risks and identify potential mitigation 

projects, and (3) build partnerships and leverage resources. State and 

local officials also said that Project Impact has been successful in 

increasing awareness of and community support for mitigation efforts 

due to its funding of these types of activities.



HMGP Has Focused on Implementing “Brick and Mortar” Projects in the 

Aftermath of a Disaster:



The HMGP was created in 1988 to assist states and communities in 

implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures following a major 

disaster declaration.[Footnote 2] The purpose of the program is to 

enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate 

recovery period following a disaster so that future risk to lives and 

property from severe natural hazards can be significantly reduced or 

permanently eliminated. To accomplish this objective, the HMGP provides 

funding to states affected by presidentially declared disasters to 

undertake mitigation activities identified in state or local hazard 

mitigation plans.



FEMA has provided a significant amount of funds for mitigation 

activities through the HMGP. During fiscal years 1996 through 2001, 

over $2.2 billion from FEMA’s disaster relief fund was obligated to 

states for this program. The maximum amount of HMGP funding available 

to any state following a presidential disaster declaration had been up 

to 15 percent of the total estimated amount of federal assistance 

provided on a declared disaster; however, the Disaster Mitigation Act 

of 2000 increased this amount to 20 percent for states that meet 

enhanced planning criteria. Appendix II contains a listing of HMGP 

obligations by year and state.



While FEMA provides the funding for the program, the responsibility for 

administering the HMGP rests with states. To this end, states review, 

prioritize, and select projects based upon state mitigation priorities 

and available funds. State and local governments, Native American 

tribes, and certain nonprofit organizations are eligible to develop 

project applications. To be considered for selection by states, 

projects must meet minimum eligibility requirements. For example, 

projects must conform to the state hazard mitigation plan, comply with 

environmental laws and regulations, and be cost-effective. FEMA will 

provide up to 75 percent of the cost of mitigation projects selected 

under HMGP; applicants must provide the remaining project 

costs.[Footnote 3] Further, while states are responsible for selecting 

projects, FEMA conducts the final eligibility review of projects to 

ensure they meet all program requirements.



HMGP funds have primarily been used by states and communities to 

implement “brick and mortar” projects. These types of projects include 

the following:



* acquiring properties in hazard-prone areas and either demolishing the 

associated structure or relocating the structure to a site outside the 

hazard-prone area;[Footnote 4]



* performing modifications to structures, such as reinforcing roofs, 

walls, and foundations, to protect them from floods, high winds, or 

other natural hazards;



* constructing new storm water drainage systems and other flood control 

projects; and:



* building protective structures, such as safe rooms inside schools in 

tornado-prone areas, to better ensure the safety of individuals.



Figure 2 shows projects undertaken with HMGP funding.



Figure 2: Projects Undertaken With HMGP Funding:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FEMA.



[End of figure]



State Officials Believe that HMGP Successfully Takes Advantage of 

Mitigation Opportunities in a Postdisaster Environment:



Hazard mitigation officials from the 24 states we contacted said that 

the HMGP has been effective in stimulating action to mitigate the 

impacts of natural hazards, primarily because it takes advantage of a 

“window of opportunity” that exists in the postdisaster environment. 

The state hazard mitigation officials said that the states’ and 

localities’ commitment to fund and implement mitigation measures is 

most likely to occur soon after they have experienced the devastation 

caused by a major disaster. These officials emphasized that states, 

local communities, and citizens affected by a disaster recognize the 

need for effective mitigation and are willing to share costs and take 

the steps necessary to remove themselves from harm’s way in the 

immediate postdisaster environment; but as time passes they are less 

willing to do so. Even officials from states that have traditionally 

received little funding under this program, such as Wyoming and Utah, 

expressed support for the program’s postdisaster approach to funding 

mitigation activities.



Below are some examples of significant mitigation projects that states 

told us they were able to undertake with HMGP funds because of the 

state, local, and citizen support for mitigation that existed in the 

immediate postdisaster environment.



* Following the devastation of Hurricane Floyd in 1999, North Carolina 

undertook a program to remove homes from flood-prone areas. In the 

immediate aftermath of Floyd, the state legislature passed a disaster 

recovery bill that not only provided $73.4 million in matching funds 

but also an additional $160 million to buy out flood-prone properties. 

The state used these funds, along with nearly $228 million in HMGP and 

other federal postdisaster mitigation funds,[Footnote 5] to target 

4,500 properties whose owners were willing to accept buyouts. As of 

June 2002, the state had completed 70 percent of these buyouts.



* In the aftermath of the May 1999 tornadoes that damaged nearly 3,350 

structures and left 6 people dead in the Wichita area, Kansas utilized 

HMGP funding to make schools more tornado-resistant, a critical need 

identified by the event. Inspections of damaged schools revealed that 

some designated refuge areas had suffered significant damage and that 

if children had been present, injuries would have likely occurred. 

According to state officials, the event and the immediate availability 

of HMGP funds were key in convincing local citizens and school district 

officials to approve a school district bond that included funds to 

construct tornado shelters inside schools. Funding from this bond 

provided the local match needed to use HMGP funds to construct 24 

shelters to protect approximately 7,800 students and staff.



* In response to a 2000 tornado that left 1 dead, injured more than 

100, and damaged nearly 200 homes and businesses in the city of Xenia, 

the state of Ohio utilized HMGP funding for the construction of safe 

rooms in this tornado-prone community. Since 1900, Xenia has been hit 

by 6 tornadoes including a 1974 tornado that killed 26 people. In the 

wake of the 2000 tornado’s devastation, the state and the community 

provided 3 times the required HMGP match to undertake the construction 

of residential safe rooms in the homes of 50 families.



According to mitigation officials from these states, it is unlikely 

that these mitigation projects would have been undertaken without the 

infusion of HMGP funding in the postdisaster environment.



Studies that have examined community action after a disaster support 

state officials’ claims that a window of opportunity exists and is 

critical for accomplishing mitigation activities. For example, a 1997 

university study that examined public response after hurricanes and 

earthquakes found that communities and local decision makers were more 

willing to undertake mitigation soon after a disaster than at other 

times.[Footnote 6] Similarly, a FEMA sponsored case study of natural 

disasters in South Florida noted that the focus on mitigation 

dissipates after cleanup and recovery are completed as public attention 

moves elsewhere.[Footnote 7] Further, according to the director of the 

Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center located at 

the University of Colorado, research generally suggests that local 

political support for mitigation is strongest in the approximately 6 

months following a disaster, after which funding becomes more difficult 

to obtain as other state and local issues take precedent. He added that 

research suggests that public support for mitigation lasts for about 1 

year, during which time citizens are more willing to participate in 

mitigation activities.



Project Impact Has Focused on Developing Broad Community Support for 

Mitigation Activities before a Disaster Strikes:



Whereas the HMGP has focused on implementing projects in a postdisaster 

environment, the Project Impact program focused on developing broad 

community support for mitigation activities before a disaster strikes. 

To accomplish this end, the Project Impact program provided small, one-

time grants directly to communities, which, among other things, were 

designed to develop mitigation plans, build effective partnerships, and 

encourage private sector financial participation.



During fiscal years 1997 through 2001, Project Impact provided a total 

of $77 million to communities within every state and certain U.S. 

territories. Unlike the HMGP, the amount of Project Impact funding 

available to communities within a state was not predicated upon the 

occurrence of a disaster; in fact, the program was structured so that 

under its funding formula, communities in every state participated in 

the program. By 2001, there were nearly 250 communities participating 

in the program, with Project Impact communities receiving grants 

between $60,000 and $1,000,000. Appendix III lists Project Impact 

grants by year and community. While states selected which communities 

received Project Impact grants, communities were responsible for 

selecting the mitigation measures to fund with these grants. Similar to 

the HMGP, however, communities were required to provide 25 percent of 

the costs for the mitigation measures.[Footnote 8]



While the mitigation measures could be “brick and mortar” projects, 

they could also fund other activities such as establishing community 

partnerships, supporting public awareness of mitigation, identifying 

hazards, and conducting risk assessments. Additionally, Project Impact 

funds could be used to promote the concept of personal and community 

responsibility for mitigation measures. For example, FEMA encouraged 

communities to establish committees composed of local officials, 

business professionals, and other stakeholders to develop and implement 

mitigation activities of importance to the community.



Figure 3 shows projects undertaken with Project Impact.



Figure 3: Projects Undertaken with Project Impact:



[See PDF for image]



Sources: FEMA (upper left), Seattle Emergency Management (upper right), 

Morgan County, CO (lower left), and New Hanover County, NC (lower 

right).



[End of figure]



State Officials Identify Project Impact’s Focus on Planning and 

Partnerships As Successful Features That Help Communities Implement 

Mitigation Measures:



The state emergency management officials from the 24 states, as well as 

the Project Impact communities we visited, believe Project Impact has 

also been successful in improving mitigation efforts throughout the 

country. They stated that the program’s focus on planning and 

developing broad community support for mitigation in a predisaster 

environment has been very beneficial in building grass root support for 

mitigation. The state officials identified four specific features of 

the Project Impact program as being most beneficial, namely the 

program’s funding of mitigation planning activities, development of 

partnerships to address mitigation needs, providing “seed money” to 

attract additional funding, and heightening of mitigation awareness 

resulting from education and outreach activities.



A primary benefit of Project Impact was its emphasis on developing 

private and public sector partnerships as a means for communities to 

address their mitigation needs. According to state and community 

officials, effective hazard mitigation requires the involvement of not 

only governments but also of the private sector--both business and 

individuals--to fully identify and address concerns. They stated that 

Project Impact had been very successful in creating partnerships that 

identify, and in most cases fund, mitigation activities. For example, a 

major corporation in Deerfield Beach, Florida, became a Project Impact 

partner and, at its own expense, installed impact resistance glass and 

concrete roofs in all of its structures to make them more disaster 

resistant. This corporation also donated shutters for the homes of some 

low-income, elderly residents. Similarly, in Wilmington, North 

Carolina, a local home improvement store used its facilities to 

distribute hurricane preparedness and mitigation brochures and was a 

major financial contributor to the local Hurricane Preparedness Expo 

that featured speakers and demonstrations to assist residents with 

their mitigation efforts.



A second benefit of Project Impact was its focus on planning as a 

critical phase in implementing mitigation projects. According to state 

and local mitigation officials, Project Impact assisted communities in 

identifying vulnerabilities, assessing risks, and developing and 

prioritizing mitigation projects to address their needs. Some states 

and communities pointed out that the development of the mitigation plan 

would not have been done without Project Impact funding. For example, 

Chattooga County, Georgia, hazard mitigation officials stated that the 

Project Impact program provided funding and technical assistance that 

enabled them to assess their risks and develop a local mitigation plan 

that prioritized projects to address these risks. As a result, the 

community is developing a project to connect six separate water systems 

within the county to address their drought risk.



Third, Project Impact was important for obtaining additional funding 

from the private sector to promote and implement mitigation. State and 

community officials pointed out that they utilized their Project Impact 

grant as “seed money” to attract additional funding from businesses, 

nonprofits and other government agencies. For example, Centerville, 

Utah, received $500,000 in Project Impact funds in 1998 that it 

utilized in part to host several meetings and outreach sessions with 

local businesses and government officials to solicit additional 

funding. The outreach effort allowed them to leverage an additional 

$2,134,447 through partnerships with the private and public sector. 

This additional funding enabled the city to address many of its 

mitigation needs such as upgrading the city’s storm drainage system, 

constructing a debris basin to eliminate the downstream flood hazard, 

and retrofitting buildings to better stabilize them against 

earthquakes.



Lastly, the state and community mitigation officials also stated that 

the education and outreach aspects of the program were instrumental in 

prompting the public and private sector to undertake mitigation 

activities. They told us that this was one of the strongest points of 

the program, as it increased the public’s awareness and concern about 

mitigation and in the view of some officials, became an impetus for 

achieving mitigation efforts without requiring government funding. For 

instance, according to information provided by Deerfield Beach, 

Florida, one citizen credited the outreach efforts of the local Project 

Impact program for motivating him to utilize his own funds to construct 

Marina One, a disaster-resistant structure for housing boats.



Proposed Program to Eliminate HMGP and Make Grants Nationally 

Competitive Has Raised Participation and Implementation Concerns:



FEMA’s fiscal year 2003 budget request proposes eliminating the HMGP 

and establishing a new $300 million program for predisaster mitigation. 

This proposed program would award mitigation grants on a competitive 

basis--instead of the current formula-based awards--to better ensure 

that funding goes to the most cost-beneficial projects. The proposal 

has raised concerns, however, about whether participation in mitigation 

activities might decrease and about how FEMA might implement the 

program.



Proposed Program Would Eliminate HMGP and Award Predisaster Mitigation 

Grants on a Nationally Competitive Basis:



Concerns have been raised about demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of 

some mitigation projects. For example, in August 1999, we reported that 

although established procedures existed for selecting HMGP projects, 

FEMA exempted four categories of projects from benefit-cost analysis, 

including the purchase of substantially damaged properties in 100-year:



floodplains.[Footnote 9] These projects were exempt because program 

officials believe that, in the case of damaged properties in the 

floodplains, they were being consistent with the policies of the 

National Flood Insurance Program that allows the purchase of damaged 

properties in floodplains without benefit-cost analysis, or in the 

other cases because determination of benefits was difficult. 

Nevertheless, for these categories of projects--the number of which 

FEMA could not identify--the cost-effectiveness was unknown. Similarly, 

FEMA’s Office of Inspector General reported in March 1998 and again in 

February 2001 concerns about the cost-effectiveness of mitigation 

projects. The office pointed out that analyses had often not been done 

and techniques for conducting them were poorly understood. The 

Inspector General’s office also reported that many projects had been 

exempted from analysis.



The administration has also had concerns about the cost-effectiveness 

of mitigation projects, and in FEMA’s fiscal year 2003 budget request, 

proposes eliminating the HMGP and establishing a $300 million 

predisaster mitigation program that would award grants on a nationally 

competitive basis. According to the budget request, the administration 

has concluded that 45 percent of HMGP projects undertaken from 1993 to 

2000 were either minimally cost effective or not cost effective at all. 

Consequently, the administration proposed substantial changes to FEMA’s 

multihazard mitigation programs. Under the proposed new program, 

mitigation grants would be awarded on a nationally competitive basis--

instead of the current formula-based awards--to better ensure that 

funding goes to the most cost-beneficial projects. According to Office 

of Management and Budget officials, future mitigation efforts funded by 

the federal government need to be those that provide the most benefit 

from a nationwide perspective and to not be limited primarily to states 

affected by disasters. The officials said that only through a program 

that does not allocate funds in any formula--but is instead based on 

objective criteria such as 

cost-effectiveness--can the government be best assured that it 

maximizes the value of its mitigation program funding.



The administration stated that the program would ensure more stability 

to disaster mitigation efforts since a consistent level of mitigation 

assistance would be available to states and communities, and they would 

no longer be dependent on disaster declarations to obtain mitigation 

grants. Further, according to the administration, a consistent level of 

funding would allow states and communities to develop more 

comprehensive proposals and projects to reduce their overall risks, 

consistent with state and local mitigation plans and would also 

strengthen states’ capability to pursue their mitigation priorities.



Proposed Program Has Raised Participation and Implementation Concerns:



From our analysis of the proposed program and discussions with FEMA and 

state hazard mitigation officials, concerns have been raised about 

whether participation in mitigation activities might decrease and about 

how FEMA might implement the program. Specifically, there are concerns 

that (1) FEMA and states may not be able to take advantage of interest 

in participating in mitigation activities that often emerges after a 

disaster has struck; (2) some states might be entirely excluded from 

mitigation funding; (3) outreach and planning activities that help 

increase participation in mitigation might be curtailed; and (4) FEMA 

might face challenges, such as establishing a process for comparing the 

costs and benefits of projects, in implementing the new program.



Lessened Ability to Take Advantage of Mitigation Opportunities:



The proposed program may limit the ability of emergency management 

officials to take advantage of mitigation opportunities. State 

officials with whom we spoke maintained that the postdisaster 

environment is the most conducive for implementing mitigation efforts, 

and that it can be difficult to maintain public or private sector 

support for mitigation in a predisaster environment. To illustrate this 

point, officials from Ohio noted how the public interest in 

constructing safe rooms has diminished since a tornado struck the 

community of Xenia in 2000. Despite the current availability of 

predisaster funds, businesses that expressed interest in constructing 

public safe rooms in the immediate aftermath of the disaster have now, 

2 years later, shown little interest in doing so. Similarly, North 

Carolina officials noted how state support for mitigation has 

diminished since the devastation of Hurricane Floyd in 1999. In June 

2002, in an attempt to address serious budgetary issues, the state 

legislature began an effort to reallocate some of the funds that had 

already been obligated to mitigation after Floyd. As a result, the 

remaining 30 percent of the planned buyouts are in jeopardy, according 

to state officials. The National Emergency:



Management Association (NEMA)[Footnote 10] has expressed similar views. 

Its official position paper on the budget proposal notes, “in the tight 

fiscal environment that states and communities are facing, the 

commitment of funding is most likely to occur only shortly after they 

have experienced devastation.”:



Some States Might Be Excluded From Mitigation Funding:



All states might not participate in mitigation activities under the new 

proposal. Many states rely on federal funding to support their 

mitigation programs, and without the current formula-based programs to 

provide a minimal level of funding support, their mitigation programs 

may not continue. According to NEMA, at least 10 states derive all 

funding for managing the state’s hazard mitigation program from the 

current federal mitigation programs, and officials from other states 

told us that state legislatures that currently provide mitigation 

program funding often require a track record of federal funding for a 

program before they will provide additional or continual funding for 

staff working on such programs. State officials said that without a 

base level of support from the federal government, a number of state 

mitigation programs will no longer exist, because the states will no 

longer employ the staff needed to implement and support a competitive 

program. Several state officials said that such diminished funding will 

not achieve the new program’s objectives of developing better projects 

or strengthening their ability to pursue mitigation priorities. 

Moreover, they added that this deviates from the manner in which the 

Congress recently mandated that predisaster funds be allocated, as the 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 directed a program for predisaster 

mitigation that involved all states.



Outreach and Planning Activities May Be Curtailed:



The public outreach and planning activities that were widely conducted 

under the Project Impact program may be jeopardized under a competitive 

predisaster mitigation program. Both FEMA and state officials said that 

such activities are essential to creating a positive environment for 

mitigation, because these activities create grassroot support and 

interest in conducting mitigation. However, both groups stated that 

establishing the financial benefit of these activities is difficult. 

For example, North Carolina officials pointed to the Project Impact 

efforts in Wilmington that involved distributing hurricane maps to all 

schoolchildren showing flood and storm surge areas, hurricane 

preparedness actions, and possible mitigation measures. The officials 

said this activity is very beneficial in building support for 

mitigation--and ultimately persuading communities and individuals to 

give high priority to mitigation and to make their own investments in 

mitigation measures--but that it would be extremely difficult to 

demonstrate a financial benefit commensurate with the cost. Concerns 

also exist about whether mitigation planning might decrease under the 

proposed program. According to state and local mitigation officials, 

Project Impact’s emphasis on planning assisted communities in 

identifying vulnerabilities, assessing risks, and developing and 

prioritizing mitigation projects to address their needs. Some state and 

community officials pointed out that the development of the mitigation 

plan would not have been done without Project Impact funding. FEMA had 

permitted Project Impact to be used to develop and update plans; state 

and local officials are concerned that with the new nationally 

competitive program, such support may diminish.



FEMA May Face Difficulties in Implementing Program:



FEMA may face challenges in designing and implementing the proposed 

program, particularly in selecting projects on a competitive, 

nationwide basis. Most significantly, FEMA has not yet established a 

viable process for comparing the relative costs and benefits of 

competing mitigation projects. The current benefit-cost analysis model 

does not fully measure the indirect benefits associated with projects. 

FEMA has acknowledged that its current benefit-cost analysis model does 

not capture all the indirect benefits of projects, such as 

environmental and social benefits, or mitigation activities such as 

outreach and planning. In this regard, FEMA is funding a study that 

examines the benefits of mitigation and which will, in part, address 

the issue of measuring the benefits of outreach, planning, and other 

activities that have benefits that are hard to quantify. However, FEMA 

does not expect this study to be completed and possibly used to improve 

benefit-cost analyses until 2004 at the earliest.



State mitigation officials agreed that FEMA would have difficulty in 

applying benefit-cost analyses to mitigation projects in a competitive 

program. They said that not only is it difficult to demonstrate the 

benefits of certain projects and the indirect benefits of others, but 

that the current analyses are difficult to do and are used primarily 

for determining project eligibility rather than on determining the full 

project benefits. In this regard, they said that in doing these 

analyses under the HMGP, they frequently discontinued additional 

analysis of the benefit of a project once the ratio of benefits to cost 

were equal--which meets the minimum program requirements. The officials 

said that this is the primary reason why the administration views many 

projects as only minimally cost effective.



Further, FEMA faces challenges in staffing and operating a nationally 

competitive mitigation program. Both FEMA and state officials said that 

states currently perform most of the analysis and selection of 

projects, while FEMA provides final approval. However, under a 

nationally competitive program, they said that FEMA will be required to 

play a greater role in order to administer a fair and effective 

competition, and will need additional staffing. FEMA mitigation 

officials expect that a minimum of 41 permanent employees will be 

needed to staff a new competitive predisaster mitigation program. 

Additionally, the officials said that FEMA would need budget authority 

to fund the new positions because they are prohibited from using the 

disaster relief fund--currently used to fund temporary employees to 

conduct the HMGP--for predisaster activities.



FEMA officials are aware of concerns about the proposed predisaster 

mitigation program and plan to address these concerns if legislation 

creating the new program is enacted. Moreover, FEMA has already 

provided some indications of how it might implement the program. 

Regarding concerns about the elimination of the HMGP, the FEMA Director 

acknowledged, in response to questions raised during appropriation 

hearings this year, that unique opportunities for mitigation exist in 

the immediate aftermath of a disaster and agreed that the HMGP has been 

effective in enabling states and communities to complete critical 

mitigation work during this period. Consequently, he stated there is a 

need for both pre-and postdisaster mitigation efforts and that if the 

Congress adopts the proposal in its current form, FEMA would attempt to 

design the program with sufficient flexibility to assist communities 

with postdisaster mitigation activities.



FEMA officials also said that they agree with states that a base level 

of funding for all states will better enable mitigation programs to 

succeed. They told us that this funding would be essential for states 

to enable them to participate in the proposed competitive program. 

However, as discussed earlier, the proposal, as currently written, 

would appear to prohibit FEMA from providing this guaranteed base. FEMA 

officials stated that they would attempt to work with states as well as 

OMB to develop a funding mechanism that would ensure that all states 

maintain a mitigation program.



Regarding the challenges that FEMA might face in implementing a 

competitive evaluation and selection process, FEMA has emphasized that 

it will collaborate with its state partners and other stakeholders in 

defining the competitive grant program and policy. This effort would 

include developing a fair, reasonable, and appropriate means for 

competitive review and selection of grant proposals. For example, FEMA 

officials stated that they would like to base their decisions on more 

than just cost-effectiveness and that they currently envision criteria 

that would focus on the quality of the proposed projects and the 

ability of the projects to address state and community mitigation 

priorities, as well as cost-effectiveness.



FEMA recently asked for input on how to best address these challenges. 

On August 6, 2002, it issued a notice in the Federal Register 

soliciting comments and ideas from interested parties on the process 

for implementing the mitigation grant program on a competitive basis. 

FEMA requested responses on specific concerns, which among other things 

included (1) how applications should be evaluated to ensure that the 

most cost-beneficial projects are funded, (2) the type of activities 

that should be funded, (3) whether funds should be set aside for states 

to maintain a level of mitigation capability, and (4) whether funds 

should be set aside for planning in addition to competitive grants. 

FEMA expects to begin consideration of the comments it receives in the 

fall if the proposed predisaster mitigation grant program is included 

in its fiscal year 2003 appropriations.



Heightened Homeland Security Concerns Present Challenges for Conducting 

Hazard Mitigation Activities:



The events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated the vulnerability of our 

nation to terrorist attack, and subsequent efforts have been initiated 

to strengthen the nation’s homeland security. These events, as well as 

the proposal to establish a Department of Homeland Security, represent 

a substantially changed environment under which FEMA and its hazard 

mitigation programs operate now and will operate in the future. As a 

result, in addition to the proposal to change the multihazard 

mitigation programs, a number of broader issues face hazard mitigation 

efforts. These issues include the following:



* The potential that an emphasis on terrorism efforts may result in a 

decrease in natural hazard mitigation activities.



* The proliferation and overlap of plans and programs that address 

mitigation-related concerns that may cause duplication of effort and 

confusion.



* The effective use of HMGP mitigation funds to reduce the risk of 

terrorism damage and associated hardship, loss, and suffering is not 

clear.



Emphasis on Terrorism May Result in Less Focus on Natural Hazards:



The proposed placement of FEMA within the DHS places functions that 

have traditionally not been security related, such as hazard 

mitigation, into a department whose primary mission will be to provide 

a secure national environment, including actions to prevent and prepare 

for possible terrorist events. Supporters of FEMA’s transfer in its 

entirety to DHS argue that dual use of funding for natural and man-made 

disasters and emergencies is appropriate in an “all hazards” approach 

to disaster assistance. For example, the Director of FEMA’s Office of 

National Preparedness said that leaving FEMA intact in DHS would 

enhance the agency’s preparedness capabilities, not detract from the 

agency’s natural disaster response and recovery functions. Further, 

FEMA mitigation officials said that they are currently working to 

identify terrorism mitigation activities that are also “all hazard” and 

address natural hazard mitigation priorities.



Concerns have been raised that with the emphasis on terrorism 

preparedness in the aftermath of September 11TH, the transfer of FEMA 

to DHS may result in decreased emphasis on mitigation of natural 

hazards. Opponents of the FEMA transfer, such as a former FEMA 

director, said that activities not associated with homeland security 

would suffer if relocated to a large department dedicated essentially 

to issues of homeland security. They contend that the agency’s disaster 

mitigation programs and other efforts integral to FEMA’s current 

mission that have no bearing on homeland security will be compromised. 

They argue that agency resources dedicated to those functions have 

already been, and would continue to be, diverted to the homeland 

security mission, resulting in diminished federal capabilities for 

nonnational security activities.



Role and Relationship of Predisaster Mitigation to New Preparedness 

Efforts:



As a result of the terrorist attacks, many new initiatives have been 

undertaken to begin addressing security concerns; however, many of them 

raise questions regarding the role and relationship of preparedness and 

mitigation efforts. FEMA requires states and communities to develop 

mitigation plans to obtain mitigation funding; however, other proposed 

legislation calls for similar, but more specialized, homeland security 

preparedness plans that may overlap with the required mitigation plans. 

For example, proposed legislation directed at increasing port security 

will require all facilities in port areas, as well as the Department of 

Transportation, to develop plans for action to deter and minimize 

damage:



from catastrophic emergencies.[Footnote 11] FEMA hazard mitigation 

officials said that they are aware that there were numerous and related 

planning requirements being placed on communities, and that they are 

working toward identifying and minimizing the impact of such 

requirements. The officials said they are confident that they will 

become aware of all such requirements due to the plans to consolidate 

preparedness efforts within FEMA. They said that planning requirements 

that address mitigation-type efforts will be adequately coordinated 

and, where appropriate, incorporated by reference into overlapping or 

related plans to minimize the burden on all stakeholders.



The new initiatives may also result in duplication or overlap in 

programs. Many programs are being initiated that address the 

predisaster environment, most significantly the $3.5 billion first 

responder grant program proposed by the administration to fund state 

and local first responders for terrorist attacks. The first responder 

grant program would provide funding to states and local governments to 

prepare for terrorist events, and a portion of this preparedness may 

involve activities that could be viewed as mitigation. Other programs, 

such as the Emergency Preparedness Enhancement Pilot Program, which is 

contained in proposed DHS legislation, may also involve the development 

of and funding for mitigation related activities, because it will 

provide funds for improved security measures at private entities. The 

number and size of these programs could result in duplication of effort 

and confusion among the state and local governments partnering in 

mitigation efforts. We found such problems occurred in the past with 

other assistance being provided to states and localities. We reported 

in September 2001, for example, that first responder training and 

assistance programs were being conducted by three federal 

organizations--FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation--which resulted in overlapping and duplicative 

activities and caused confusion on the part of state and local 

officials.[Footnote 12]



Usefulness of HMGP Funding for Terrorism Disasters Is Unclear:



As discussed earlier, HMGP funds have been typically made available to 

states following presidentially declared disasters in amounts totaling 

as much as 15 percent of the federal grant funds spent on the disaster. 

HMGP funds have historically been used for natural hazard mitigation, 

although no restrictions have been made on the types of disasters for 

which these funds are made available. Consequently, HMGP funds can be, 

and have been, made available after disasters resulting from terrorist 

attacks. In fact, according to FEMA officials, after the 1995 explosion 

at the federal building in Oklahoma City, HMGP funds were made 

available to Oklahoma. The amount provided was relatively small--$1 

million--which FEMA officials said was due to the low amount of 

disaster assistance funds spent on this disaster. According to these 

officials, the mitigation funding provided to Oklahoma was used for 

natural hazard mitigation because FEMA has traditionally interpreted 

the HMGP authority to limit funding to only natural hazard mitigation 

projects.



As shown by the disaster in New York, the HMGP funding that could be 

provided in response to terrorist events may be substantial. Currently, 

FEMA has been authorized to fund disaster assistance to New York 

approaching $9 billion. Based on this level of assistance funding and 

the current 15 percent HMGP funding formula, New York could have 

received about $1.3 billion in HMGP funding for mitigation projects. 

President Bush, however, has limited the amount of HMGP funds the state 

can receive. In a September 18, 2001, amendment to his major disaster 

declaration for New York, the President stated that because of the 

unique nature and magnitude of this event, federal funds from the HMGP 

would be limited to 5 percent of the aggregate amount of federal grant 

assistance. FEMA officials said that at this percentage rate, HMGP 

funding to New York might total about $417 million.



The key objective of the HMGP is to reduce the risk of future damage, 

hardship, loss, or suffering; however, it is not clear how mitigation 

funds can be effectively used to reduce the risk of terrorism damage 

and associated hardship, loss, or suffering. FEMA officials said that 

it would be difficult to develop a benefit-cost methodology for 

terrorism mitigation, because there is little data upon which to 

calculate the likelihood of an event and thereby determine the 

project’s benefit. FEMA officials said that they are undertaking a 

pilot program with New York to identify terrorism-related hazard 

mitigation measures, such as physical protection and security-related 

projects that can meet cost-effectiveness criteria.



Concluding Observations:



FEMA’s current multihazard mitigation programs are viewed positively by 

the emergency management community, but questions about the programs’ 

cost-effective projects have lead to a proposal to consolidate and 

revise them. The focus of the proposed new program on obtaining the 

most cost-effectiveness projects, in light of current budget concerns, 

is well intended. However, the issue facing decisionmakers is whether 

the proposed revision to the program will make the program more 

effective in achieving disaster mitigation objectives. The structure of 

the new program may not be able to capitalize on the characteristics of 

the current programs that have been viewed as successful--such as 

acting in the postdisaster environment to quickly take advantage of 

mitigation opportunities and undertaking outreach activities to develop 

grassroot support for mitigation. A balance that includes these 

characteristics in the program may need to be struck, and we are 

encouraged to see that FEMA is obtaining input and consensus on how to 

best structure the new program if it obtains congressional approval. 

Furthermore, without careful structuring of the program, FEMA’s hazard 

mitigation program may not remain consistent with the approach of 

disaster mitigation legislation passed only 2 years ago by the Congress 

that emphasized involvement by all states, funding for planning 

activities, and increased postdisaster mitigation funding for states 

willing to undertake enhanced mitigation planning efforts.



The proposed inclusion of FEMA in DHS and, in the broader context, the 

heightened concern over terrorism raises more fundamental issues about 

hazard mitigation efforts, such as (1) how natural hazard mitigation 

activities would fare in the new department that focuses on terrorism, 

(2) whether planning and program efforts in the mitigation and 

preparedness area should remain separate and distinct, and (3) how the 

HMGP--and the legislation authorizing it--address the role and 

rationale for mitigation after a terrorism-caused disaster.



Agency Comments:



We provided a draft copy of this report to FEMA for its review. The 

FEMA Director, in a September 24, 2002, letter commenting on the 

report, generally agreed with the information presented and noted that 

the report supports his belief that both pre-and postdisaster 

mitigation programs are critical to FEMA’s success in reducing disaster 

losses. Additionally, the Director stated that the expertise the agency 

has developed in natural hazard mitigation is clearly applicable to the 

homeland security mission, and FEMA looked forward to addressing the 

opportunities presented by the proposal to include it in the new 

Department of Homeland Security. FEMA also provided some technical 

comments that we considered and have incorporated into this report 

where appropriate. FEMA comments are contained in appendix IV.



As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 10 days. At 

that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate 

congressional committees; the Director of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency; and the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov.



If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-2834 or at heckerj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report 

were Mark Abraham, Colin Fallon, Kirk Kiester, Aisha Cabrer, John 

McGrail, and Jack Schulze.



Sincerely yours,



Signed by:

JayEtta Z. Hecker,

Director, Physical Infrastructure:

Signed by JayEtta Z. Hecker



[End of section]



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Debate has emerged in recent years about the effectiveness of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) multihazard mitigation 

programs--the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the Project 

Impact program. The administration also has proposed, in FEMA’s fiscal 

year 2003 budget request, to change the multihazard mitigation programs 

to improve their effectiveness. Further, the recent proposal to create 

the Department of Homeland Security includes moving FEMA into that 

department, which may also impact on the overall conduct and content of 

these programs. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on International 

Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs, asked us to determine the available viewpoints on 

the effectiveness of these mitigation programs and the possible impacts 

of the two proposals. We addressed the following objectives:



* What are the characteristics of FEMA’s current multihazard mitigation 

programs, and what do states perceive as these programs’ most 

successful features?



* How would the proposed program change FEMA’s current approach to 

mitigation, and what are some of the concerns that have been raised 

about this proposal?



* What are the issues resulting from the increased federal focus on 

homeland security on conducting hazard mitigation efforts?



To determine the characteristics of FEMA’s multihazard mitigation 

programs, we reviewed FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and 

Project Impact program regulations, policy guidance and handbooks, 

which identified and described the programs’ purpose, goals, 

eligibility criteria, cost-effective criteria and funding. We also 

examined relevant legislation that described the programs’ objectives, 

funding, and the focus of its activities. We conducted a review of the 

available literature on the multihazard mitigation programs, including 

past GAO, FEMA Inspector General, and other reports that provided a 

perspective on these programs. We also discussed these programs with 

FEMA officials in Washington, D.C., as well as in its regional offices 

in Atlanta, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; and Chicago, Illinois.



To determine state mitigation officials viewpoints on the successful 

features of these programs, as well as their overall perspectives on 

the programs, we interviewed state hazard mitigation officials from 24 

states within 4 FEMA regions (IV, V, VII and VIII) to obtain their 

views about their experiences administering and utilizing these 

programs.[Footnote 13] We selected these regions and the states within 

these regions because they provide a representation of small and large 

states that contain urban and rural communities that have received both 

small and larger amounts of multihazard mitigation funding. These 

states also have varied experience with disasters. We examined and 

synthesized documents provided by these officials detailing their 

experiences with these mitigation programs. We also conducted site 

visits and interviewed local hazard mitigation officials in Georgia, 

Florida, and North Carolina because these states have a wide variety of 

pre-and postdisaster mitigation projects and are very active in both 

the HMGP and Project Impact program. We also reviewed studies available 

from the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center 

and from FEMA that addressed the benefits and results of both the HMGP 

and the Project Impact program. In addition, we met with officials in 

OMB’s Financial Institutions Branch to obtain their perspectives on the 

effectiveness of the current programs as well as on the objectives for 

the proposed new mitigation program.



To determine how the current legislative proposals might change FEMA’s 

mitigation programs, we interviewed FEMA headquarters and regional 

mitigation officials to gain their perspective about the proposed 

changes. Specifically, with regard to the proposal to establish a new 

predisaster mitigation program, we obtained their viewpoints on what 

challenges they would confront in (1) developing the criterion and 

processes of selecting mitigation projects; (2) addressing 

administrative issues, such as staffing; and (3) addressing any 

statutory issues from replacing the HMGP with a new competitive grant 

program. We also gained the perspectives of state hazard mitigation 

officials we interviewed on how they perceived the proposed changes 

would impact their ability to pursue mitigation activities. We also 

reviewed available literature that presented the viewpoints of various 

organizations on either the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed 

program.



To determine the issues related to conducting hazard mitigation efforts 

as a result of the increased federal focus on homeland security, we 

drew upon recently completed work that is examining the challenges 

surrounding the establishment of that department. This work included 

assessments of the administration’s proposal to establish a Department 

of Homeland Security, examinations of the relationships between 

federal, state, and local governments in undertaking terrorism 

preparedness efforts, a review of legislative proposals related to the 

Coast Guard and port security, as well as ongoing work that assesses 

port security efforts. We also discussed the effects of including 

mitigation activities with FEMA mitigation officials to determine from 

them the concerns that exist over the movement of mitigation activities 

into the Department of Homeland Security.



We conducted our review from November 2001 through August 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Sum of Federal Share FYs 

1996 through 2001:



State: Alabama; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $28,388,389.



State: Alaska; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,427,222.



State: American Samoa; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,439,989.



State: Arizona; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $5,846,952.



State: Arkansas; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $28,863,818.



State: California; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $842,164,071.



State: Colorado; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $2,240,270.



State: Connecticut; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $228,030.



State: Delaware; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,458,432.



State: District of Columbia; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $333,194.



State: Federated States of Micronesia; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,714,614.



State: Florida; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $113,767,617.



State: Georgia; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $68,576,382.



State: Guam; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $15,405,037.



State: Hawaii; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $5,516,732.



State: Idaho; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $7,900,582.



State: Illinois; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $48,121,513.



State: Indiana; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,377,889.



State: Iowa; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $19,791,384.



State: Kansas; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $8,999,484.



State: Kentucky; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $23,895,191.



State: Louisiana; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $27,395,780.



State: Maine; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $8,621,478.



State: Marshall Islands; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,660,762.



State: Maryland; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $3,954,401.



State: Massachusetts; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $14,250,969.



State: Michigan; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $13,908,460.



State: Minnesota; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $52,155,805.



State: Mississippi; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $20,251,013.



State: Missouri; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $7,028,575.



State: Montana; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,323,473.



State: Nebraska; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $19,154,960.



State: Nevada; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,497,474.



State: New Hampshire; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $3,081,072.



State: New Jersey; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $7,900,902.



State: New Mexico; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $516,529.



State: New York; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $32,909,514.



State: North Carolina; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $109,273,418.



State: North Dakota; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $61,174,509.



State: Northern Mariana Islands; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $1,888,603.



State: Ohio; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $19,964,660.



State: Oklahoma; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $2,434,709.



State: Oregon; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $14,305,475.



State: Pennsylvania; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $41,808,975.



State: Puerto Rico; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $251,740,124.



State: Republic of Palau; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $238,864.



State: Rhode Island; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $52,250.



State: South Carolina; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $6,344,480.



State: South Dakota; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $17,201,876.



State: Tennessee; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $16,505,454.



State: Texas; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $77,265,725.



State: Utah; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $0.



State: Vermont; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $4,873,516.



State: Virgin Islands; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $63,739,358.



State: Virginia; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $16,906,846.



State: Washington; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $35,603,443.



State: West Virginia; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $16,678,378.



State: Wisconsin; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $15,977,313.



State: Wyoming; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $41,178.



State: Total; Sum of federal share - obligated

(FY 1996 thru 2001): $2,229,087,113.



Source: FEMA.



[End of Table]



[End of section]



Appendix III Project Impact Communities:



Community: Alabama:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Baldwin County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Mobile County with Town of Dauphin Island & City of Bayou La 

Batre; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Jefferson County; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.



Community: City of Fort Payne; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Prattville/Autauga County; Year: 2001; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Alaska:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Municipality of Anchorage; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Kenai Peninsula Borough; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Matanuska-Susitna Borough; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Valdez Borough; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Arizona:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Tempe; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Yuma; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Glendale; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Scottsdale; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Arkansas:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Clay County/City of Piggott/City of Corning/City of Rector; 

Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Arkadelphia; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Tuckerman; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of West Memphis; South Arkansas Community Development; 

Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: California:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Oakland; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.



Community: County of Santa Barbara/City of Santa Barbara; Year: 1998; 

Grant: $500,000.



Community: San Bernadino County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Napa County[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.



Community: City of Berkeley; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: County of Colusa; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: City of San Leandro; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Las Virgenes Malibu Council of Governments (includes the 

cities of Agoura Hills, Calabassas, Hidden Hills, Malibu & Westlake 

Village); Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.



Community: Colorado:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Ft. Collins; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Clear Creek County; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Morgan County; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.



Community: City of Delta; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Region of San Luis Valley (Counties of Alamosa, Conejos, 

Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, & Saguache); Year: 2000; Grant: 

$150,000.



Community: El Paso County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Connecticut:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Town of Westport; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Milford; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Town of East Haven; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Norwich; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Delaware:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Lewes; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Milford; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Town of Bethany Beach; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Wilmington; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: District of Columbia:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Washington, D.C.; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Florida:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Deerfield Beach/Broward County; Year: 1997; Grant: 

$1,000,000.



Community: City of Pensacola/Escambia County; Year: 1999; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Tampa Bay Region (Counties of Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, 

and Pinellas & 38 incorporated municipalities); Year: 2000; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Jacksonville/Duval County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.



Community: Volusia County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.



Community: Brevard County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.



Community: Miami-Dade County; Year: 2001; Grant: $75,000.



Community: Georgia:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Counties of Camden, Glynn, and Macintosh; Year: 1998; Grant: 

$500,000.



Community: Chatham, Bryan, & Liberty Counties; Year: 1999; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Chatooga County and incorporated cities; Year: 2000; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: City of Macon/Bibb County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Hawaii:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: County of Hawaii; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: County of Maui; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: County of Kauai; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City and County of Honolulu; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Idaho:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Boise; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Kamiah and Lewis County; Year: 1999; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Blaine County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Clearwater County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Illinois:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Carbondale; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Urbana; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Cities of Charleston & Mattoon; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Peoria; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Indiana:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Evansville/County of Vanderburgh; Year: 1998; Grant: 

$500,000.



Community: City of South Bend and St. Joseph County; Year: 1999; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Tippecanoe County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Lake County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Iowa:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Denison; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Des Moines; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Cherokee[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.



Community: City of LeMars; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Linn County/Cities of Cedar Rapids, Marion, Hiawatha, & 

Robins[A]; Year: 2000; Grant: $0.



Community: City of Council Bluffs; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Kansas:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Riley County/City of Manhattan; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Johnson County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Kinsley[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.



Community: Butler County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Butler County Cities of Andover, Augusta, Benton, Cassoday, 

Douglass, Elbing, El Dorado, Latham, Leon, Potwin, Rose Hill, Towanda, 

& Whitewater[A]; Year: 2000; Grant: $0.



Community: Sedgwick County/City of Wichita; Year: 2001; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Sedgwick County Cities of Andale, Bel Aire, Bentley, Cheney, 

Clearwater, Colwick, Derby, Eastborough, Garden Plain, Goddard, 

Haysville, Kechi, Maize, Mount Hope, Mulvane, Park City, Sedgwick, 

Valley Center, & Viola[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.



Community: Kentucky:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Louisville/Jefferson County; Year: 1998; Grant: 

$500,000.



Community: City of Lexington/Fayette County; Year: 1999; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: City of Bowling Green/Warren County; Year: 2000; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: City of Henderson/Henderson County; Year: 2001; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Ballard County[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.



Community: Louisiana:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Baton Rouge; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Mandeville; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Ouachita Parish; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Calcasieu Parish; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Maine:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Saco; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Portland; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Cities of Lewiston & Auburn; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Fort Fairfield; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: York County[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.



Community: Maryland:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Allegany County; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.



Community: Tri-County Council of Southern Maryland: Calvert, Charles, & 

St. Mary’s Counties; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Prince George’s County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Cecil County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Massachusetts:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Town of Marshfield; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Quincy; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Upper Mystic River Basin Watershed (in Middlesex County; 

includes communities of Arlington, Burlington, Lexington, Medford, 

Reading, Stoneham, Wilmington, Winchester, & Woburn); Year: 2000; 

Grant: $300,000.



Community: Cape Cod Commission (includes 15 Towns that comprise 

Barnstable County); Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Worcester; Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.



Community: Michigan:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Midland; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Ottawa County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Dearborn; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Ingham County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Minnesota:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Steele County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Burnsville; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Fridley, Washington County; Year: 2000; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Stearns County/Benton County Partnership; Year: 2001; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Mississippi:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Pascagoula; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.



Community: City of Madison; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Harrison County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Hancock County/City of Bay St. Louis; Year: 2001; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Missouri:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Cape Girardeau; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of St. Joseph; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Maryville[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.



Community: City of Neosho; Year: 2000; Grant: $180,000.



Community: City of Piedmont; Year: 2000; Grant: $120,000.



Community: City of Hannibal; Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.



Community: City of Bolivar; Year: 2001; Grant: $200,000.



Community: City of Branson[A]; Year: 2001; Grant: $0.



Community: Montana:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Libby/County of Lincoln; Year: 1998; Grant: 

$500,000.



Community: Lewis and Clark County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Yellowstone County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Gallatin County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Nebraska:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Beatrice; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Superior; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Cities of Scottsbluff & Gering/Scotts Bluff County; Year: 

2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Grand Island; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Nevada:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Sparks; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Las Vegas; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Reno[A]; Year: 1999; Grant: $0.



Community: City of Carson City; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Douglas County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: New Hampshire:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Town of Peterborough; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Towns of Plymouth & Holderness; Year: 1999; Grant: $100,000.



Community: Town of Salem; Year: 1999; Grant: $200,000.



Community: Town of Lancaster; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Town of Gorham; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Town of Hampton; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Town of Winchester; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: New Jersey:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Trenton; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Rahway; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Stafford Township; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Ocean City; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Avalon Borough[A]; Year: 2000; Grant: $0.



Community: Atlantic City; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: New Mexico:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Hobbs; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Carlsbad; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Village of Ruidoso; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Dona Ana County/City of Las Cruces; Year: 2001; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: New York:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Rye; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Village of Freeport; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Buffalo; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Village of East Rockaway; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.



Community: Village of Waverly; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.



Community: Town of Dryden; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.



Community: Town of Eden; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.



Community: Town of Erwin; Year: 2000; Grant: $60,000.



Community: City of New Rochelle; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Town of Amherst; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: North Carolina:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County; Year: 1999; Grant: 

$150,000.



Community: City of Wilmington & New Hanover County; Year: 1997; Grant: 

$1,000,000.



Community: Town of Boone; Year: 1999; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Buncombe County & all incorporated municipalities; Year: 

2000; Grant: $100,000.



Community: Lenoir County & all incorporated municipalities; Year: 2000; 

Grant: $100,000.



Community: The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Year: 2000; Grant: 

$100,000.



Community: Research Triangle Region (includes Wake, Durham, & Orange 

Counties with Research Triangle Park); Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: New River; Year: 2001; Grant: $100,000.



Community: North Dakota:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Fargo; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Valley City; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Jamestown; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Pembina County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Ohio:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Licking County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Colerain Township in Hamilton County; Year: 1999; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Clermont County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Westerville; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Medina County; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: City of Xenia; Year: 2001; Grant: $200,000.



Community: Oklahoma:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Tulsa; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Miami; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Durant; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Lawton; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Oregon:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Benton County; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Tillamook County; Year: 1998; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Multnomah County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Deschutes County/City of Bend; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Clackamas County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Pennsylvania:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Lycoming County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Union Township; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Luzerne County Flood Control Authority/Mitigation Advisory 

Board (Includes the counties of Luzerene, Columbia, Montour, 

Northumberland, and Snyder); Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Union County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Puerto Rico:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Culebra; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Municipality of Bayamon; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Municipality of Barranquitas; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Rhode Island:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Warwick; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Pawtucket; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Providence; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Woonsocket; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: South Carolina:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Florence; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Charleston County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Orangeburg County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Horry County; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: Georgetown County; Year: 2001; Grant: $150,000.



Community: South Dakota:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Aberdeen; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Huron; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Watertown; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Sioux Falls; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Tennessee:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Fayetteville/Lincoln County; Year: 1998; Grant: 

$500,000.



Community: City of Jackson/Madison County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Anderson County, including the cities of Clinton, Lake City, 

Norris, Oak Ridge, & Oliver Springs; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Washington County/Johnson City; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Texas:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Harris County to include Bellaire, Webster, & Houston; Year: 

1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: City of Arlington; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Lubbock; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Austin; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: U.S. Virgin Islands:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: St. Croix; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Utah:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Centerville; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Salt Lake City; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Moab; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.



Community: City of Logan; Year: 2000; Grant: $150,000.



Community: City of Provo; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Vermont:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Lamoille County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Two River-Ottauquechee Regional Planning Commission 

(includes most of Orange & Northern Windsor Counties and the Towns of 

Pittsfield, Hancock, and Granville); Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: North West Regional Planning Commission (includes 23 towns 

in Franklin & Grand Isle Counties); Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Addison County Regional Planning Commission (includes 

Addison County and 21 Towns in the Region); Year: 2001; Grant: 

$300,000.



Community: Virginia:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Roanoke Valley District Planning Commission (Roanoke County, 

City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton); Year: ; 1998; Grant: ; 

$500,000.



Community: City of Virginia Beach; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Chesapeake; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Central Shenandoah Planning District (Augusta, Bath, 

Highland, Rockbridge & Rockingham Counties; Cities of Buena Vista, 

Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, & Waynesboro; and 11 towns); Year: 

2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Washington:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Seattle; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.



Community: King and Pierce Counties; Year: 1998; Grant: $600,000.



Community: Walla Walla County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Kitsap County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Clark County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: West Virginia:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Tucker and Randolph Counties; Year: 1997; Grant: $1,000,000.



Community: Cabell County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Barbour County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Jefferson County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Wisconsin:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: City of Wauwatosa; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Racine County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Waukesha; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: City of Eau Claire; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Wyoming:; Year:  ; Grant:  .



Community: Fremont County; Year: 1998; Grant: $500,000.



Community: Natrona County; Year: 1999; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Teton County; Year: 2000; Grant: $300,000.



Community: Campbell County; Year: 2001; Grant: $300,000.



[End of table]



[A] Communities listed that received no Project Impact grant funds were 

those that used the Project Impact name for hazard mitigation efforts 

they were conducting without federal funding.



Source: FEMA.



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Comments from the Federal Management Agency:



Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472:



SEP 24 2002:



JayEtta Z. Hecker:



Director, Physical Infrastructure:



United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Ms. Hecker:



Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the 

General Accounting Office’s (GAO) draft report entitled Hazard 

Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA’s Multihazard Mitigation Programs 

Present Challenges (GAO-02-1035). My staff and I appreciate the 

cooperative manner in which the GAO proceeded with the draft report and 

provided us with opportunities for input and submission of editorial 

comments.



The report recognizes the overall increased federal costs of disaster 

assistance as a result of the recent series of unusually large and 

frequent disasters, as well as the increasing federal role in assisting 

communities and individuals affected by disasters. Specifically, the 

report discusses changes in the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. I appreciate your 

support of my strongly held belief that funding and support of both 

pre-and post-disaster mitigation programs are critical to FEMA’s 

success in leading the nation to reduce disaster losses. As you may be 

aware, FEMA and State officials face significant challenges to 

accomplish effective hazard mitigation with the limited financial and 

staff resources available.



In addition, we look forward to addressing the opportunities presented 

by the proposal to include FEMA in the new Department of Homeland 

Security. Homeland security concerns make it necessary to balance 

mitigation activities between natural and manmade hazards. This is an 

appropriate approach to all-hazards disaster resistance. The expertise 

we have developed in natural hazard mitigation areas, such as risk 

assessment, is clearly applicable to the homeland security mission.



Please contact Anthony S. Lowe, Administrator, Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administration for questions or follow up.



Sincerely,

Joe M. Albaugh:

Director:

Signed by Joe M. Albaugh:



[End of Section]



FOOTNOTES



[1] For fiscal year 2002, the Project Impact program ended and was 

replaced with the Predisaster Mitigation Program. The Predisaster 

Mitigation Program has not been fully implemented, as FEMA has 

suspended the development of implementing regulations pending the 

outcome of the fiscal year 2003 budget.



[2] Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act as amended.



[3] Many states provide a portion of the local match out of state 

budgeted funds. The local match may be comprised of cash, in-kind 

services, or third-party goods and services.



[4] Properties acquired with HMGP funds may not be built upon, but can 

be used for parks or other public purposes or else returned to their 

natural state.



[5] These funds included both HMGP funds and additional mitigation 

funding contained in supplemental disaster assistance appropriations.



[6] Thomas A. Birkland, After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, 

and Focusing Events (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 

1997).



[7] Mitigation Resources for Success, FEMA, October 2001.



[8] The local match may be comprised of cash, in-kind services, or 

third-party goods and services.



[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Opportunities 

to Improve Cost-Effectiveness Determinations for Mitigation Grants, 

GAO/RCED-99-236 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 1999).



[10] The National Emergency Management Association is the professional 

association of state, Pacific, and Caribbean insular state emergency 

management directors.



[11] S. 1214, Maritime Transportation Antiterrorism Act of 2002.



[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Selected 

Challenges and Related Recommendations, GAO-01-822 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 20, 2001).



[13] These 24 states included region IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; 

region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin; 

region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska; region VIII: 

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



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



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: