Rapid Development of a Flood Acquisition Project

1. Rapid Development of a Flood Acquisition Project Decisions and Opportunities

2. Be Prepared • Become familiar with your local HMP risk assessment and mitigation strategy • Stay up to speed on the FEMA HMA guidance so that you’re well versed on eligibility criteria • Have a local champion to lead and support the initiative to implement mitigation in your community • Get to know your SHMO!

3. What makes a “good” project? • Review of risk and/or previous damage caused by hazards, matched with an activity that produces a reasonable level of protection for the cost involved • Projects that address high risk areas should have the highest probability of being funded

4. Benefits of Project Scoping • Helps establish that you’re on the right track • Develops alternatives that ensures the selected action is eligible and competitive • Allows you to “sync” your mitigation idea with the appropriate funding mechanism

5. Initial Project Scoping • Use the best information available to identify: • Vulnerable areas • Mitigation solution and alternatives • Best information may include documents such as: • Local hazard mitigation plan • Special studies and reports

6. Scoping Components Benefit-Cost Review Eligible Project? Feasibility Review Environmental Evaluation Other Factors Historic Preservation Community Support Eligibility

7. Scoping “Project Eligibility” • Confirm that the project: • Conforms with state and local mitigation plans • Meets all program-specific eligibility requirements • Independently solves a problem caused by hazards • Directly reduces damages

8. Scoping “Feasibility” • Key issue is effectiveness, which means how well the project reduces losses defined by the level of protection provided by the project • For most, project effectiveness is directly linked to the level of design • Therefore, there is a need for some level of conceptual engineering review

9. Scoping “Feasibility” • How will it mitigate the losses? • What is the proposed and possible level of protection of mitigating the hazard? • What will be the residual risk after mitigation? • Can the project be constructed? • What will the impacts of construction be?

10. Scoping “Cost Effectiveness” • Calculation of risk is based on frequency and severity of the hazard(s) • Higher the frequency and severity, the higher the risk • Projects that effectively mitigate high risk situations are usually cost-effective • Represents how often the investment of mitigation will produce a return Good rule of thumb for flood mitigation: FFE 2ft below BFE

11. Scoping “Environmental Impacts” • What are environmental concerns of the project? • Minor or negligible • Major (e.g. moving flooding problem downstream) • Can the project be permitted? • Will environmental issues impact project design? • Adjust cost estimate accordingly • Does environmental mitigation need to be included in the project design? • If you suspect an adverse impact, contact your SHMO early on in the process!

12. Scoping “Community Support” • Is the project acceptable to the community? • Are property owners interested in participating? • Can the community supply the local match? • Can the community manage the project? • Does the community have the necessary technical resources to develop and implement the project? • Is the community willing and able to maintain the implemented measure?

13. Scoping Summary • By using a scoping and selection process, you can confirm that you have a good project • Next step is to clearly and completely articulate how you have established a good project through application development • The comparison of alternatives should be documented and you should have a complete decision making process outlined

14. Available Funding Sources • Federal programs such as HMGP, PDM, FMA, RFC, SRL, CDBG • State programs • Various • Local programs • General or capital funds • Revolving loan funds • Local sales tax • Utility taxes (e.g. stormwater) • Property owner responsibility • In-Kind • Project management • Labor, equipment, materials

15. Proposed Solution • Describe the solution in a descriptive SOW • Specific description of what you are proposing (can you visualize it?) • Provide geographic locations with street names and block numbers *Be sure that as you explain your SOW throughout the application, it remains consistent!

16. Damage History • Details regarding the problem and back-up data • Describe the nature of the problem caused by hazards (e.g. flooding in homes, roadbeds destroyed by floods, business disruption, etc.) • Provide data that describes the hazard’s impact (e.g. 2 ft of water in 6 homes resulting in 40 hours of displacement) • Provide a frequency, if possible (e.g. greater than 100 year but less than 500)

17. Benefit-Cost Analysis • Accurate preparation of a BCA is a critical element of a project application • Project subapplication BCR must be 1.0 or greater • BCAs are generally the responsibility of the subgrantee • Seek training and education on BCA!

18. Benefit-Cost Analysis • All data entries (other than FEMA standard or default values) MUST be documented in the application • Data MUST be from a credible source • Provide all supporting documentation related to all user-entered data • If funded, costs to acquire data may be reimbursable as a pre-award cost

19. Important Considerations for Project Application Development • Assume the reviewer does not know anything about your area/region and may never be able to visit the project site • Most of the information used to evaluate alternative projects will be needed in the application • Fully describe the results of the project’s decision making process • Read the program guidance carefully and provide information accordingly • Begin preparing the environmental work early in the process

20. Typical Application “Shortcomings” • Ensure the project is eligible under the respective program • Scope-of-work is inadequate, too little detail, descriptions unclear, key data missing, no supporting maps/diagrams • Not a well-developed, well-screened project • Addressed a “nuisance” issue rather than a real property threat • Risk was not high enough • Mitigation measure did not provide adequate protection • Cost of measure was too high for level of protection provided • Supporting documentation/detail was incomplete, inaccurate, and/or not credible

21. Pilot Opportunity • State’s can incorporate an expedited process into the application process section of their administrative plan (HMGP) • Acquisition/demolition (only) is selected action • Structure has been determined substantially damaged • Highest priority

22. Summary • Well-prepared applications do not always mean you have an eligible and competitive project • The best prepared application will not be successful if the project is not feasible and effective in mitigating the hazard(s) identified • Effective project identification, scoping, and screening is essential • Start early! • Not all mitigation activities are eligible for FEMA funding. A project may be a high community priority but just not the right fit under FEMA HMA programs (if this is the case, don’t give up! Seek alternative funding)

23. City of Arlington, Texas • Prepared a complete application in 2 days (pending environmental clearance) • City had tracked and had supporting documentation on damage history including loss = BCA success! • SOW included acquisition of 11 rep loss structures • Total budget was 1.2 million • FEMAs FMA grant program was selected as the funding mechanism • Biggest challenge was awaiting environmental responses • This activity was pre-identified as an action in the city’s current HMP