FEMA is responsible for most of the programs of the federal government that support mitigation; this section focuses on these programs. As noted earlier, the SBA, Economic
Development Administration (EDA), and HUD have policies that support mitigation. The PATH program at HUD supports incorporating mitigation into public housing. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has several programs in floodplain management and, in 2002, initiated a pilot program for national watersheds. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which is described in a following section, includes several other federal agencies; however, the predominant federal agency involved in disaster mitigation is FEMA. FEMA’s programs include the NFIP (described earlier in the chap- ter), the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), the National Hurricane Program, the National Dam Safety Program, and the Fire Prevention and Assistance Grant Program.
In 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2000). DMA2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in an effort to encourage mitigation planning at the state and local levels, requiring that states maintain mitigation plans as a prerequisite for certain federal mitigation funding and disaster assistance programs. The program also provided incentives to states that could show increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities by establish- ing two different levels of state plan certification: “standard” and “enhanced.” States that demonstrated what was considered “an increased commitment to comprehensive mitigation planning” through the development of an approved enhanced state plan could increase the amount of funding they received through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, described next. DMA2000 also established a new requirement for local mitiga- tion plans and authorized up to 7 percent of HMGP funds available to a state to be used for development of state, tribal, and local mitigation plans.
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
HMGP is the largest source of funding for state and local mitigation activities. This program provides grants to state and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation programs after a major disaster has been declared by the president. HMGP projects must reduce the risk, and the benefits of the project must exceed the costs.
Examples of activities supported by HMGP include the following:
• Acquisition of property on a voluntary basis and commitment to open use of the property.
• Retrofitting of structures and lifelines. • Elevation of structures.
• Vegetation management programs. • Building code enforcement. • Localized flood-control projects. • Public education and awareness.
This program was enacted by Congress in 1988 as part of the Robert T. Stafford Act, which was a major reworking of federal disaster policy. In addition to creating the HMGP, it established a cost sharing of disaster assistance by the states. At the time, the formula for state HMGP funding was 15 percent of the public assistance costs, and it had a 50 percent federal, 50 percent state cost share.
From the period 1988 to 1993, many states did not take advantage of the HMGP funding because it was difficult to meet the matching requirements, even though the 15 percent cap was often not very much. After the devastation of the 1993 Midwest floods, Congressman Volkmer from Missouri championed a change to the legislation that would significantly increase the states’ ability to mitigate. Congress amended the legislation to allow for a 75 percent federal, 25 percent state match and dramatically increased the amount of funding to 15 percent of the total disaster costs. The rationale for these changes was to work aggressively to move people and structures out of the floodplain. As the Missouri case study at the end of this chapter documents, the ratio- nale was sound.
HMGP allowed states to hire staff to work on mitigation and required develop- ment of a state Hazard Mitigation Plan as a condition of funding. This program brought about a change in the emergency management community at the state and local levels. With adequate funding, states and localities began to hire staff designated to work on mitigation.
HMGP has its detractors and, in 2002, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed that this program be eliminated in favor of a new predisaster competitive grant program. However, as of fiscal year 2007, this program still was avail- able for disaster-stricken communities.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
Through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Congress approved creation of a national Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program to provide mitigation funding not dependent on a disaster declaration. The genesis of PDM was an initiative of the Clinton administration called Project Impact: Building Disaster-Resistant Communities. Project Impact grew out of the devastating disasters of the 1990s. Many of the communities hit by these disasters took months and even years to recover emotionally and financially. James Lee Witt, then director of FEMA, questioned the wisdom of spending more than $2.5 billion per year on disaster relief and not a penny to reduce disasters before they happen. The mitigation tools and techniques were available, so why not work to prevent individuals and com- munities from becoming victims of disasters? With a small amount of seed money, FEMA launched Project Impact in 1997 in seven pilot communities.
The concept behind the initiative was simple. The mitigation activities had to be designed and tailored to the hazards in that community, and all sectors of the community had to become involved for it to be effective and sustainable. Project Impact brought the business community under the emergency management umbrella. Communities were asked to achieve the following four goals:
1. Build a community partnership. 2. Assess the risks.
3. Set priorities on risk-reduction actions.
4. Build support by communicating these actions.
By 2001, more than 200 communities were participating in Project Impact, and Congress had appropriated $25 million to the initiative. Seattle, Washington, was one of the original pilot communities. In 2002, when a 6.8 earthquake struck Seattle, the mayor attributed the success of the Project Impact activities for the minimal damages
and prompt recovery. The Tulsa case study provides an example of a Project Impact community.
In 2002, the Bush administration decided to drop the Project Impact name and con- cept in exchange for a competitive grant program as its approach to PDM. The program’s original budget request was $300 million, and it was proposed that PDM replace both Project Impact and the HMGP.
As designed, PDM is designed to provide “funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event.” The program requires jurisdictions to submit applications for a competitive grant selection.
Since its inception, the amount of funding provided for the program has varied sig- nificantly from year to year. Fiscal year (FY) 2003 was the first year grants were awarded, with $150 million appropriated to fund the program’s initiation and to cover $13.7 million in noncompetitive grants (awarded to all U.S. states and territories) and $131.5 million in competitive grants. These funding levels were continued through FY 2004, but increased in FY 2005 to $255 million. In FY 2006, PDM’s appropriation decreased over 80 percent from FY 2005 to $50 million, its lowest level yet. Actual grant awards from FY 2006 totaled only $26 million, which represents an 88 percent drop from the previ- ous year, presumably reflective of the federal government’s continued focus on homeland security spending. However, in FY 2007, funding levels were increased twofold to $100 million (with a minimum of $500,000 reserved for each state), still far short of FY 2005 levels.
As of FY 2007, there are some changes to the program, including a significant eligi- bility requirement that local applicant communities maintain an approved FEMA Hazard Mitigation Plan in place as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Many of the original mechanisms remain the same, however, such as the 25 percent commitment that must be covered by the local applicant and that the state office of emergency management serve as grantee while local agencies apply to the state.
The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program is a federal government effort focused on reducing the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States. Congress established the program in 1977 (Public Law 95–124) as a long-term, nationwide program to reduce the risks to life and property in the United States resulting from earthquakes. This is accomplished through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program.
The NEHRP works to improve understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improve model building codes and land-use practices; reduce risk through postearthquake investigations and education; develop and improve design and construction techniques; improve mitigation capacity; and accelerate application of research results. The NEHRP provides funding to states to establish programs that pro- mote public education and awareness, planning, loss estimation studies, and some mini- mal mitigation activities. FEMA also supports state and local governments by providing HAZUS, a computer risk modeling tool for communities to use for estimating potential losses from natural hazards.
The primary NEHRP program agencies are • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). • National Science Foundation (NSF).
• United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Since NEHRP’s inception, Congress has reviewed and reauthorized it every two or three years. Congress recently completed a thorough two-year review of NEHRP, result- ing in enactment of the NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108–360), which the president signed into law on October 25, 2004. Public Law 108–360 designates NIST as the lead agency for NEHRP, transferring that responsibility from FEMA, which filled that role since the program’s inception. The NIST director chairs the NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee, which comprises the directors of the primary program agen- cies, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the law assigns NIST significant new research and development responsibilities to close the research-to-implementation gap and accelerate the use of new earthquake risk mitigation technologies based on the earth sciences and engineering knowledge developed through NEHRP efforts.
The specific roles of each of the agencies within NEHRP are summarized:
• FEMA is responsible for emergency response and management, estimation of loss potential, and implementation of mitigation actions.
• NIST conducts applied earthquake engineering research to provide the technical basis for building codes, standards, and practices and provides the NEHRP lead agency function. • NSF conducts basic research in seismology, earthquake engineering, and social,
behavioral, and economic sciences and operates the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (which includes the tsunami wave basin research facility and supporting tsunami research).
• USGS operates the seismic networks, develops seismic hazard maps, coordinates postearthquake investigations, and conducts applied earth sciences research (which includes tsunami research and risk assessment).
• NSF and USGS jointly support the Global Seismographic Network (GSN), the main facility for pinpointing earthquakes in real time.
The NEHRP Reauthorization Act of 2004 authorized $900 million to be spent during the period from 2004 to 2009. The law also authorizes the spending of $72.5 million, over a three-year period, for the creation of a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, which will be modeled according to the NEHRP model, to study the impact of wind-related hazards on structures and the mitigation of these consequences.
Source: Information from www.bfrl.nist.gov.
The National Hurricane Program
This FEMA program supports activities at the federal, state, and local levels that focus on the physical effects of hurricanes, improved response capabilities, and new
mitigation techniques for the built environment. The program has done significant work in storm surge modeling and evacuation planning, design and construction of properties in hurricane-prone areas, and public education and awareness programs for schools and communities. The amount of funding that FEMA receives for this program is in the range of $3 million annually, which is clearly not commensurate with the risk.
The National Dam Safety Program
The National Dam Safety Program Act of 1996 formally established the National Dam Safety Program and named the director of FEMA as its coordinator. Initiatives under the act include funding to the states to establish and maintain dam safety programs, training for state dam safety staff and inspectors, technical and archival research in dam safety, education of the public in the hazards of dam failure and related matters, the estab- lishment of the National Dam Safety Review Board, and support for the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety. This act, which is part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, expired in fiscal year 2002.
The Fire Prevention and Assistance Act
This program was created in 2001 to address the needs of the nation’s paid and volun- teer fire departments and to support prevention activities. Congress had longstanding concerns about status of this first responder community. New threats from potential biochemical terrorism, increasing wildfire requirements, and a stagnant search and res- cue capability provided the rationale for funding this program. This multimillion-dollar grant program provides competitive grants to fire companies throughout the United States. In the wake of the September 11 events, the appropriations for this program tripled in 2002.
FEMA’S Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
The purpose of the program is to award one-year grants directly to fire departments of a state to enhance their abilities with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. This program seeks to identify departments that lack the basic tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and their firefighting per- sonnel. The primary goal is to provide assistance to meet these needs. The program originally provided grants in four program areas, including fire operations and fire- fighter safety, fire prevention, firefighting vehicles, and emergency medical services (EMS). However, in FY 2004, emergency medical services activities were removed as an independent program area and incorporated into the appropriate activities under the Operations and Firefighter Safety Program activity.
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program: FY 2002 Award Recipients (through August 12, 2002)
Number of Awards Amount of Awards
Category 2002 2003 2002 2003
Fire operations and firefighter safety 4,731 7,014 $281,091,066 $502,157,331
Fire prevention 215 294 $10,926,998 $14,070,509
Firefighting vehicles 315 1,374 $39,277,630 $185,113,255 Emergency medical services 53 68 $3,069,736 $4,547,325
Total 5,314 8,753 $334,365,430 $705,888,420
Source:http://www.firegrantsupport.com/af.
Critical Thinking
• Should mitigation funding from the federal government be tied to individual disasters, like it is with the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, or should it be independent of disasters altogether, as it is with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program? Explain your answer.
• What are the advantages of having a hazard-specific grant program, such as the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program? Are there any disadvantages?