Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf Coasts (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Institutional Landscape for Coastal Risk Management
2 Institutional Landscape for Coastal Risk Management
Pages 39-68
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 39... ...
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planning, authorization, and funding process is included to provide context for this complex landscape of coastal risk reduction efforts.
|
From page 40... ...
A list of USACE coastal storm risk management projects on the East and Gulf Coasts is provided in Appendix B The USACE has also been tasked to undertake coastal risk reduction studies or efforts under specific authorizations limited to a particular area or event.
|
From page 41... ...
Department of Federal Transit Public Transportation 10,900 Transportation Administration Emergency Relief (DOT) Program Federal Highway Federal-Aid Highways -- 2,022 Administration Emergency Relief Program Federal Railroad 148 Administration, Federal Aviation Administration Department of Federal Emergency Disaster Relief Fund 11,488 Homeland Security Management Agency (DHS)
|
From page 42... ...
Federal Buildings Fund Total amount of 50,510 appropriations aThe majority of appropriation accounts that received funding under the Disaster Relief Act were categorized as nondefense discretionary spending and therefore were subject to an additional reduction of 5.0 percent of their budgetary resources due to sequestration, not reflected here. Accounts that were categorized as nondefense mandatory spending were subject to a 5.1 percent reduction, and accounts that were categorized as defense discretionary spending were subject to a 7.8 percent reduction.
|
From page 43... ...
related to water resources development, including flood risk reduction.
|
From page 44... ...
of the total Civil Works budget. The vast majority of funds for USACE coastal risk reduction efforts are through emergency supplemental appropriations, passed by Congress in response to specific national disasters (Tables 2-1 and 2-3)
|
From page 45... ...
. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA authorities and responsibilities for coastal risk management activities range from direct response to natural disasters to oversight of mitigation programs to administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (see Box 2-2)
|
From page 46... ...
Infrastructure is often repaired to pre-flood conditions, unless an effort is made to include mitigation for risk reduction, which would require a benefit-cost analysis.1 Individual Assistance. The Individual Assistance Program provides disaster aid directly to individuals, including temporary housing or funding for housing repairs, crisis counseling, and grants to assist with needs not covered by insurance, such as transportation, medical, or funeral expenses.2 1 See http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-frequently-asked-questions. 2 See http://www.fema.gov/disaster-process-disaster-aid-programs.
|
From page 47... ...
. FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Annual Appropriation 0.875 0.295 0.295 0.294 0.295 0.27 Emergency Supplemental 98.2 0 0 0 0 300 Disaster Relief Funda Annual Appropriation 1,324 1,288 1,600 2,523 7,076 6,653 Emergency Supplemental 10,960 0 5,100 0 6,400 10,914b Mitigation Pre-Disaster Mitigation 114 90 100 50 36 24 Flood-related Grantsc 62 110 79 209 60 120 NOTE: Funding shown here addresses all disasters, not just coastal storms.
|
From page 48... ...
Pre-Disaster Mitigation. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program is used to fund local, state, and tribal governments and others at the community level to plan for hazards and implement cost-effective risk reduction measures prior to a disaster. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation program provides up to 75 percent of the costs of mitigation activities (or up to 90 percent in small or low-income communities)
|
From page 49... ...
can be used as the nonfederal cost share.5 The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is funded through the Disaster Relief Fund, discussed in the preceding section. Hazard mitigation grants were about 5 percent ($5.2 billion; DHS, 2012a)
|
From page 50... ...
In July 2012 the National Flood Insurance Reform Act, known as the Biggert-Waters Act, was passed by Congress and signed into law (P.L.
|
From page 51... ...
. Its contributions to coastal risk reduction come from observational data collection and forecasts, inundation modeling and risk reduction decision support tools, coastal zone management, and training.
|
From page 52... ...
. The committee does not have information on what percentage of these budgets directly supports coastal risk reduction.
|
From page 53... ...
Additionally, the Federal Transit Administration received Hurricane Sandy Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of $10.8 billion to repair the most impacted transit systems (P.L.
|
From page 54... ...
The Department of the Interior is modernizing the maps of the CBRS in the north Atlantic with $5 million funding from the Hurricane Sandy emergency supplemental appropriation (P.L.
|
From page 55... ...
The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force was a focused effort to improve federal coordination and align federal resources with local recovery and rebuilding priorities. Led by HUD, with membership from more than 20 other federal departments, agencies, and offices, the Task Force made numerous policy recommendations, including a building elevation standard (advisory base flood elevation + 1 foot [0.3 m]
|
From page 56... ...
Several federal coordination efforts address coastal risk management among other issues. The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force was authorized by Congress and established under the Water Resources Council in 1975 to develop a proposed framework for a "Unified National Program for Floodplain Management." The Task Force, which consists of 12 federal agencies and is chaired by FEMA, has proposed several such frameworks (FIFMTF, 1986, 1989, 1994)
|
From page 57... ...
This section summarizes the procedures and criteria that the USACE uses for coastal risk reduction project planning, authorization, and appropriations, in order to provide a context for understanding opportunities for and impediments to improving links with other federal, state, and community risk reduction efforts. Project Initiation and Planning Guidance for USACE water resources planning activities, including coastal risk reduction, inland flood risk reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, comes from several sources, but the two most important that are currently in effect are the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (Principles and Guidelines; WRC, 1983)
|
From page 58... ...
. USACE projects, including coastal risk reduction projects, follow six project planning steps identified in the Principles and Guidelines: 1.
|
From page 59... ...
USACE projects are considered "economically feasible" if the national economic development benefits exceed the costs. The major categories of NED benefits that are currently considered in USACE coastal risk reduction projects are (USACE, 2011a)
|
From page 60... ...
USACE coastal risk reduction projects can also include measures to reduce the consequences of an event, such as land purchase and relocation, although several past reports have highlighted the USACE's limited emphasis on such strategies (Moore and Moore, 1989; NRC, 1999, 2004b)
|
From page 61... ...
However, Congress has provided greater federal funding for the construction of some risk reduction projects after a major disaster (e.g., 100 percent for construction and repair of authorized projects after Hurricane Sandy, 89 percent for the HSDRRS after Hurricane Katrina [USACE, 2012b]
|
From page 62... ...
These regional studies and projects, which were funded at full federal expense, represent the exception rather than the norm for USACE coastal risk efforts. A major constraint of supplemental funding is that it tends to be reactive in nature, providing funding for risk reduction and resilience efforts only after an area has been impacted by a coastal storm.
|
From page 63... ...
Overall, these issues make it difficult to address coastal risk reduction on a regional scale within the USACE process. Funding and Prioritization Only a small fraction of annual USACE appropriations are directed toward coastal storm damage reduction projects (see Table 2-1)
|
From page 64... ...
Aside from beach nourishment projects, which are considered continuing construction projects for their life span, minimal funding is typically allocated for operations and maintenance of hard structural risk reduction projects (e.g., levees, surge barriers; see Table 2-1) , because such funding is borne by local sponsors under current guidance.
|
From page 65... ...
. State and local governments also partner with the USACE to develop and fund coastal risk reduction projects, per cost-sharing requirements (Box 2-3)
|
From page 66... ...
Risks are also borne by coastal residents who face economic and social disruption after a severe coastal storm. However, behavioral and cognitive factors hinder individuals and organizations from taking appropriate risk reduction actions (Kunreuther, 2006)
|
From page 67... ...
Following major disasters, many look to the federal government for resources to fund emergency response, individual and community postdisaster assistance, redevelopment programs, mitigation efforts, and coastal storm damage reduction projects. In recent years, the federal government has borne a larger share of the costs associated with major hurricanes (Table 1-5)
|
From page 68... ...
The vast majority of the funding for coastal risk-related issues is provided only after a disaster occurs, through emergency supplemental appropriations. Pre-disaster funding for mitigation, preparedness, and planning is limited, and virtually no attention has been given to prioritization of coastal risk reduction expenditures at a regional or national scale to better prepare for future disasters.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.