HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrantsThe Ci!_Y of
College Station, Texas
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future.
Office of the Mayor
P.O. Box 9960 •
July 14, 2003
1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3541 • FAX: (979) 764-6377
www.ci.college-station.tx.us
Texas Dept. of Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Hazard Mitigation Section
ATIN: Sherrie Mickan
Post Office Box 4087
Austin, Texas 78773-0226
RE: E-Grants
Dear Ms. Mickan,
The City of College Station is providing this official letter as detailed in your agency's
June 23, 2003 correspondence. We are requesting a password to access the E-Grants site to
apply for PDM-C grants.
The following three individuals are requested access as designated:
1. Create and edit the application:
Mark L. Smith, Public Works Director
2. View and Print the application:
Bob Mosley, City Engineer
3. Sign/Submit the application:
Ron Silvia, Mayor
The project officer for daily management of the project will be:
Mark L. Smith, Public Works Director
(979) 764-3691
(979) 764-3489 (fax)
2613 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77845
Msmith@cstx.gov
Please let us know if there is anything further that your office requires at this time. Thank you for
your mnsideration of our request.
Sincerely, ~~
Home of Texas A&M University
Home of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum
19~Ci
~lrLe--t;q
b1h
Owner Name
WOLF CREEK
PARTNERS LTD
PROP ID
R38855
R38 85 Page of 1
Current Owner Legal Description Exemotions Aooraised
WOLF CREEK PARTNERS LTD (974 05 ) REDMOND TERRACE, BLOCK 4, LOT $1 ,237,100
12042 BLANCO RD STE 306 18,19 ,20 & ADJ PT KAPCHINSKI BLK 2 I
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78216-5438 ACRES 2 . 76 Entities Homestead Cao
Gl , S2 , C2 N/A
Situs Address Historv Information
306 REDMOND 2002 2001 2000 1999
(AKA 316 REDMOND) I Imp HS ----
Imp NHS $1 ,326 ,660 $1 ,213,560 $1,213,560 $1,213 ,560
Land HS ----
Sales Land NHS $180 ,340 $180 ,340 $1 80,340 $180,340 Date Volume Page Seller Ag Mkt ----11/02/1989 1151 504,WO::::REIXWELL, JUAN TRUSTEE
06/21/1989 1125 4 8 8 I WDI R E TEXAS I INC Ag Use ----
05/03/1988 1 043 315 ,TI:AGGIELAND APARTMENTS Tim Mkt ----
MONACO II LIMI TED Tim Use ----
HS Cap
Assessed $1 ,507 ,000 $1,393,900 $1,393 ,900 $1,393,900
Buildina Attributes lmorovement Sketch
Construction Foundation Exterior Interior Roof Flooring
HeaUAC Baths Fireplace Year Built Rooms Bedrooms
1 968
Improvements
Type Description Area Year Built Eff Year Value c COMMERCIAL $878,460
MA MAIN AREA 468 52 1968 1985 $1 ,025,070
OP OPEN PORCH 4300 $28 ,220
c COMMERCIAL $100 ,600
c COMMERCIAL $59 ,670
MA MAIN AREA 2250 $59 ,670
Land Segments
Sptb Description Area Market Ag Value
Bl COMMERCIAL 1 2022 5~1 98 ,370
Statement Of Account
Issue Date · 07/15/2003
Gerald L. "Buddy" Winn
Brazos County
Tax Assessor I Collector
300 E. William J. Bryan Pkwy
Bryan, TX 77803-5397
This is a statement of taxes paid and due as of
07/15/2003 based upon the tax records of the Brazos
County Appraisal District.
This document is not a tax certificate and does not
absolve a taxpayer from tax liability in any way.
Should this document be found to be in error, it may be
corrected by the collection office. Responsibility to
pay taxes remains with the taxpayer as outlined in the
Texas Property Tax Code.
Property Information Owner Information
Property ID : R38855
Cross Ref : 538500-0004-0180
REDMOND TERRACE, BLOCK 4, LOT
18,19,20 & ADJ PT KAPCHINSKI BLK
ACRES 2 .76
Situs Addr : 306 REDMOND
(AKA 316 REDMOND),
Bill ID Tax Paid
C2. 01.131504 6,658.66
2.02.134798 7,198.94
Gl. 01.131504 5 ,854.38
Gl.02.134798 6,248.02
S2. 01.131504 24,950.81
S2.02.134798 26,975.30
2 '
Value Information
Land HS : $0
Land NHS : $180,340
Imp HS : $0
Imp NHS : $1,326,660
Ag Mkt : $0
Ag Use : $0
Assessed : $1,507,000
HS Cap Adj :
Adj Assd : $1,507,000
Bills Summary
PAID BILLS SUMMARY
Disc P&I Att Fee
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Owner ID : 97405
WOLF CREEK PARTNERS LTD
12042 BLANCO RD STE 306
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78216-5438
Date Paid Amt Paid
12/31/2001 6,658.66
12/17/2002 7,198.94
12/31/2001 5,854.38
12/17/2002 6,248.02
12/31/2001 24,950.81
12/17/2002 26,975.30
Total Pai d on Pai d Bi l ls: $77 ,886.11
Total Due for Property if Paid Before 08/01/2003: $0.00
Page 1
§13.36
EXCERPT FROM 44 CFR, PART 1 3 REGARDING PROCUREMENT
WITH FEMA GRANT FUNDS
(Emergency Forms Pkg, Item 17)
Procurement.
(a) States: When procuring property and services under a grant, a State will
follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its
non-Federal funds. The State will ensure that every purchase order or other
contract includes any clauses required by Federal statutes and executive
orders and their implementing regulations. Other grantees and subgrantees
will follow paragraphs (b) through (i) in this section.
(b) Procurement standards:
(1) Grantees and subgrantees will use their own procurement
procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and
regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable
Federal law and the standards identified in this section.
(2) Grantees and subgrantees will maintain a contract administration
system which ensures that contractors perform in accordance with the
terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase
orders.
(3) Grantees and subgrantees will maintain a written code of
standards of conduct governing the performance of their employees
engaged in the award and administration of contracts. No employee,
officer or agent of the grantee or subgrantee shall participate in
selection, or in the award or administration of a contract supported by
Federal funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be
involved. Such a conflict would arise when:
(i) The employee, officer or agent,
(ii) Any member of his immediate family,
(iii) His or her partner, or
(iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ, any
of the above, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected
for award. The grantee's or subgrantee's officers, employees or
agents will neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything
of monetary value from contractors, potential contractors, or
Item 1 7 , Page 1 of 1 2 12/19/97
parties to subagreements. Grantee and subgrantees may set
minimum rules where the financial interest is not substantial or
the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal intrinsic value. To the
extent permitted by State or local law or regulations, such
standards or conduct will provide for penalties, sanctions, or
other disciplinary actions for violations of such standards by the
grantee's and subgrantee's officers, employees, or agents, or by
contractors or their agents. The awarding agency may in
regulation provide additional prohibitions relative to real,
apparent, or potential conflicts of interest.
( 4) Grantee and subgrantee procedures will provide for a review of
proposed procurements to avoid purchase of unnecessary or
duplicative items. Consideration should be given to consolidating or
breaking out procurements to obtain a more economical purchase.
Where appropriate, an analysis will be made of lease versus purchase
alternatives, and any other appropriate analysis to determine the most
economical approach.
(5) To foster greater economy and efficiency, grantees and
subgrantees are encouraged to enter into State and local
intergovernmental agreements for procurement or use of common
goods and services.
(6) Grantees and subgrantees are encouraged to use Federal excess
and surplus property in lieu of purchasing new equipment and property
whenever such use is feasible and reduces project costs.
(7) Grantees and subgrantees are encouraged to use value engineering
clauses in contracts for construction projects of sufficient size to offer
reasonable opportunities for cost reductions. Value engineering is a
systematic and creative analysis of each contract item or task to
ensure that its essential function is provided at the overall lower cost.
(8) Grantees and subgrantees will make awards only to responsible
contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the
terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be
given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public
policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical
resources.
(9) Grantees and subgrantees will maintain records sufficient to detail
the significant history of a procurement. These records will include, but
are not necessarily limited to the following : rationale for the method of
Item 1 7 , Page 2 of 1 2 12/19/97
procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or
rejection, and the basis for the contract price.
(1 O) Grantees and subgrantees will use time and material type
contracts only-
(i) After a determination that no other contract is suitable, and
(ii) If the contract includes a ceiling price that the contractor
exceeds at its own risk.
(11) Grantees and subgrantees alone will be responsible, in accordance
with good administrative practice and sound business judgment, for the
settlement of all contractual and administrative issues arising out of
procurements. These issues include, but are not limited to source
evaluation, protests, disputes, and claims. These standards do not
relieve the grantee or subgrantee of any contractual responsibilities
under its contracts. Federal agencies will not substitute their judgment
for that of the grantee or subgrantee unless the matter is primarily a
Federal concern. Violations of law will be referred to the local, State, or
Federal authority having proper jurisdiction.
(12) Grantees and subgrantees will have protest procedures to handle
and resolve disputes relating to their procurements and shall in all
instances disclose information regarding the protest to the awarding
agency. A protester must exhaust all administrative remedies with the
grantee and subgrantee before pursuing a protest with the Federal
agency. Reviews of protests by the Federal agency will be limited to:
(i) Violations of Federal law or regulations and the standards of
this section (violations of State or local law will be under the
jurisdiction of State or local authorities) and
(ii) Violations of the grantee's or subgrantee's protest
procedures for failure to review a complaint or protest.
Protests received by the Federal agency other than those
specified above will be referred to the grantee or subgrantee.
(c) Competition:
(1) All procurement transactions will be conducted in a manner
providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of
section 13.36. Some of the situations considered to be restrictive of
competition include but are not limited to:
Item 1 7, Page 3 of 1 2 12/19/97
(i) Placing unreasonable requirements on firms in order for them
to qualify to do business,
(ii) Requiring unnecessary experience and excessive bonding,
(iii) Noncompetitive pricing practices between firms or between
affiliated companies,
(iv) Noncompetitive awards to consultants that are on retainer
contracts,
(v) Organizational conflicts of interest.
(vi) Specifying only a "brand name " product instead of allowing
"an equal" product to be offered and describing the performance
of other relevant requirements of the procurement, and
(vii) Any arbitrary action in the procurement process.
(2) Grantees and subgrantees will conduct procurements in a manner
that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed in-State
or local geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals,
except in those cases where applicable Federal statutes expressly
mandate or encourage geographic preference. Nothing in this section
preempts State licensing laws. When contracting for architectural and
engineering (A/E) services, geographic location may be a selection
criteria provided its application leaves an appropriate number of
qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project, to compete for
the contract.
(3) Grantees will have written selection procedures for procurement
transactions. These procedures will ensure that all solicitations:
(i) Incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical
requirements for the material, product, or service to be
procured. Such description shall not. in competitive
procurements, contain features which unduly restrict competition.
The description may include a statement of the qualitative nature
of the material, product or service to be procured, and when
necessary. shall set forth those minimum essential characteristics
and standards to which it must conform if it is to satisfy its
intended use. Detailed product specifications should be avoided if
at all possible. When it is impractical or uneconomical to make a
clear and accurate description of the technical requirements, a
"brand name or equal " description may be used as a means to
Item 1 7 , Page 4 of 1 2 12/19/97
define the performance or other salient requirements of a
procurement. The specific features of the named brand which
must be met by offerors shall be clearly stated; and
(ii) Identify all requirements which the offerors must fulfill and all
other factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals.
( 4) Grantees and subgrantees will ensure that all pre-qualified lists of
persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods and
services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure
maximum open and free competition. Also, grantees and subgrantees
will not preclude potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation
period .
(d) Methods of procurement to be followed:
(1) Procurement by small purchase procedures: Small purchase
procedures are those relatively simple and informal procurement
methods for securing services, supplies, or other property that do not
cost more than $25,000 in the aggregate. If small purchase
procurements are used, price or rate quotations will be obtained from
an adequate number of qualified sources.
(2) Procurement by sealed bids (formal advertising): Bids are publicly
solicited and a firm-fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is
awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the
material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in
price. The sealed bid method is the preferred method for procuring
construction, if the conditions in §13.36(d)(2)(i) apply.
(i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following
conditions should be present:
(A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or
purchase description is available;
(B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able
to compete effectively for the business; and
(C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price
contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be
made principally on the basis of price.
(ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply:
Item 17, Page 5 of 1 2 12/19/97
(A) The invitation for bids will be publicly advertised and
bids shall be solicited from an adequate number of known
suppliers, providing them sufficient time prior to the date
set for opening the bids;
(B) The invitation for bids, which will include any
specifications and pertinent attachments, shall define the
items or services in order for the bidder to properly
respond;
(C) All bids will be publicly opened at the time and place
prescribed in the invitation for bids;
(D) A firm fixed-price contract award will be made in
writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as
discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs shall be
considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment
discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when
prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually
taken advantage of; and
(E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound
documented reason.
(3) Procurement by competitive proposals: The technique of
competitive proposals is normally conducted with more than one source
submitting an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-reimbursement type
contract is awarded. It is generally used when conditions are not
appropriate for the use of sealed bids. If this method is used, the
following requirements apply:
(i) Requests for proposals will be publicized and identify all
evaluation factors and their relative importance. Any response
to publicized requests for proposals shall be honored to the
maximum extent practical
(ii) Proposals will be solicited from an adequate number of
qualified sources;
(iii) Grantees and subgrantees will have a method for conducting
technical evaluations of the proposals received and for selecting
awardees;
Item 1 7 , Page 6 of 1 2 12/19/97
(iv) Awards will be made to the responsible firm whose proposal
is most advantageous to the program, with price and other
factors considered-and
(v) Grantees and subgrantees may use competitive proposal
procedures for qualifications-based procurement of
architectural/engineering (A/E) professional services whereby
competitors' qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified
competitor is selected subject to negotiation of fair and
reasonable compensation. The method, where price is not used
as a selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E
professional services. It cannot be used to purchase other types
of services though A/E firms are a potential source to perform
the proposed effort.
( 4) Procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through
solicitation of a proposal from only one source, or after solicitation of a
number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.
(i) Procurement by noncompetitive proposals may be used only
when the award of a contract is infeasible under small purchase
procedures, sealed bids or competitive proposals and one of the
following circumstances applies:
(A) The item is available only from a single source;
(B) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement
will not permit a delay resulting from competitive
solicitation.
(C) The awarding agency authorizes noncompetitive
proposals; or
(0) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition
is determined inadequate.
(ii) Cost analysis, i.e., verifying the proposed cost data, the
projections of the data, and the evaluation of the specific
elements of costs and profit, is required.
(iii) Grantees and subgrantees may be required to submit the
proposed procurement to the awarding agency for pre-award
review in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section.
Item 1 7, Page 7 of 1 2 12/19/97
(e) Contracting with small and minority firms, women 's business enterprise
and labor surplus area firms:
(1) The grantee and subgrantee will take all necessary affirmative
steps to assure that minority firms, women's business enterprises, and
labor surplus area firms are used when possible.
(2) Affirmative steps shall include:
(i) Placing qualified small and minority businesses and women's
business enterprises on solicitation lists;
(ii) Assuring that small and minority businesses, and women's
business enterprises are solicited whenever they are potential
sources;
(iii) Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into
smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by
small and minority business, and women's business enterprises;
(iv) Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement
permits, which encourage participation by small and minority
business, and women's business enterprises;
(v) Using the services and assistance of the Small Business
Administration, and the Minority Business Development Agency of
the Department of Commerce; and
(vi) Requiring the prime contractor if subcontracts are to be let,
to take the affirmative steps listed in paragraphs (e) (2) (i)
through (v) of this section.
(f) Contract cost and price:
(1) Grantees and subgrantees must perform a cost or price analysis in
connection with every procurement action including contract
modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the
facts surrounding the particular procurement situation. but as a
starting point. grantees must make independent estimates before
receiving bids or proposals. A cost analysis must be performed when
the offeror is required to submit the elements of his estimated cost,
e.g.. under professional, consulting, and architectural engineering
services contracts. A cost analysis will be necessary when adequate
price competition is lacking, and for sole source procurements. including
contract modifications or change orders, unless price reasonableness
can be established on the basis of a catalog or market price of a
Item 1 7. Page 8 of 1 2 12/19/97
commercial product sold in substantial quantities to the general public
or based on prices set by law or regulation. A price analysis will be
used in all other instances to determine the reasonableness of the
proposed contract price.
(2) Grantees and subgrantees will negotiate profit as a separate
element of the price for each contract in which there is no price
competition and in all cases where cost analysis is performed. To
establish a fair and reasonable profit, consideration will be given to the
complexity of the work to be performed, the risk borne by the
contractor. the contractor's investment, the amount of subcontracting,
the quality of its record of past performance, and industry profit rates
in the surrounding geographical area for similar work.
(3) Costs or prices based on estimated costs for contracts under
grants will be allowable only to the extent that costs incurred or cost
estimates included in negotiated prices are consistent with Federal cost
principles (see §13.22). Grantees may reference their own cost
principles that comply with the applicable Federal cost principles.
( 4) The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction
cost methods of contracting shall not be used.
(g) Awarding agency review:
(1) Grantees and subgrantees must make available, upon request of
the awarding agency, technical specifications on proposed
procurements where the awarding agency believes such review is
needed to ensure that the item and/or service specified is the one being
proposed for purchase. This review generally will take place prior to
the time the specification is incorporated into a solicitation document.
However, if the grantee or subgrantee desires to have the review
accomplished after a solicitation has been developed, the awarding
agency may still review the specifications, with such review usually
limited to the technical aspects of the proposed purchase.
(2) Grantees and subgrantees must on request make available for
awarding agency pre-award review [ delete ", "] procurement
documents, such as requests for proposals or invitations for bids,
independent cost estimates, etc., when:
(i) A grantee's or subgrantee's procurement procedures or
operation fails to comply with the procurement standards in this
section-or
Item 1 7. Page 9 of 1 2 12/19/97
(ii) The procurement is expected to exceed $25,000 and is to be
awarded without competition or only one bid or offer is received
in response to a solicitation; or
(iii) The procurement. which is expected to exceed $25,000,
specifies a "brand name" product-or
(iv) The proposed award over $25,000 is to be awarded to
other than the apparent low bidder under a sealed bid
procurement; or
(v) A proposed contract modification changes the scope of a
contract or increases the contract amount by more than
525,000.
(3) A grantee or subgrantee will be exempt from the pre-award review
in paragraph (g) (2) of this section if the awarding agency determines
that its procurement systems comply with the standards of this
section.
(i) A grantee or subgrantee may request that its procurement
system be reviewed by the awarding agency to determine
whether its system meets these standards in order for its
system to be certified. Generally, these reviews shall occur where
there is a continuous high-dollar funding, and third-party
contracts are awarded on a regular basis;
(ii) A grantee or subgrantee may self-certify its procurement
system. Such self-certification shall not limit the awarding
agency's right to survey the system. Under a self-certification
procedure, awarding agencies may wish to rely on written
assurances from the grantee or subgrantee that it is complying
with these standards. A grantee or subgrantee will cite specific
procedures, regulations, standards, etc., as being in compliance
with these requirements and have its system available for review.
(h) Bonding requirements: For construction or facility improvement contracts
or subcontracts exceeding $100,000, the awarding agency may accept the
bonding policy and requirements of the grantee or subgrantee provided the
awarding agency has made a determination that the awarding agency's
interest is adequately protected. If such a determination has not been made,
the minimum requirements shall be as follows:
Item 1 7, Page 1 O of 1 2 12/19/97
( 1 ) A bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to five percent of the
bid price: The "bid guarantee" shall consist of a firm commitment such
as a bid bond, certified check, or other negotiable instrument
accompanying a bid as assurance that the bidder will, upon acceptance
of his bid, execute such contractual documents as may be required
within the time specified.
(2) A performance bond on the part of the contractor for 7 00
percent of the contract price: A "performance bond" is one executed in
connection with a contract to secure fulfillment of all the contractor's
obligations under such contract.
(3) A payment bond on the part of the contractor for 7 00 percent of
the contract price: A "payment bond " is one executed in connection
with a contract to assure payment as required by law of all persons
supplying labor and material in the execution of the work provided for in
the contract.
(i) Contract provisions: A grantee's and subgrantee's contracts must
contain provisions in paragraph (i) of this section. Federal agencies are
permitted to require changes, remedies, changed conditions, access and
records retention, suspension of work, and other clauses approved by the
Office of Procurement Policy.
(1) Administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where
contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such
sanctions and penalties as may be appropriate. (Contracts other than
small purchases)
(2) Termination for cause and for convenience by the grantee or
subgrantee including the manner by which it will be effected and the
basis for settlement. (All contracts in excess of $10,000)
(3) Compliance with Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965
entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity " as amended by Executive
Order 11375 of October 13, 1967 and as supplemented in Department
of Labor regulations ( 41 CFR part 60). (All construction contracts
awarded in excess of $10,000 by grantees and their contractors or
subgrantees)
(4) Compliance with the Copeland "Anti-Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. 874)
as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 3).
(All contracts and subgrants for construction or repair)
Item 1 7. Page 11 of 1 2 12/19/97
(5) Compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a to a-7) as
supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 5).
(Construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by grantees and
subgrantees when required by Federal grant program legislation). DCR
Manual Editor's Note: The Robert T . Stafford Disaster
Assistance and Emergency Relief Act, As Amended, 42 U .S.C.
5121 et seq. does not require compliance with the Davis-
Bacon Act.
(6) Compliance with Sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act ( 40 U.S.C. 327-330) as supplemented by
Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 5). (Construction
contracts awarded by grantees and subgrantees in excess of $2,000,
and in excess of $2,500 for other contracts which involve the
employment of mechanics or laborers)
(7) Notice of awarding agency requirements and regulations pertaining
to reporting.
(8) Notice of awarding agency requirements and regulations pertaining
to patent rights with respect to any discovery or invention which arises
or is developed in the course of or under such contract.
(9) Awarding agency requirements and regulations pertaining to
copyrights and rights in data.
(1 O) Access by the grantee, the subgrantee, the Federal grantor
agency, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their
duly authorized representatives to any books, documents, papers, and
records of the contractor which are directly pertinent to that specific
contract for the purpose of making audit , examination, excerpts, and
transcriptions.
(11) Retention of all required records for three years after grantees or
subgrantees make final payments and all other pending matters are
closed.
(12) Compliance with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements
issued under section 306 of the Clear Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857(h)),
section 508 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1368). Executive Order
11738, and Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR part
1 5). (Contracts, subcontracts, and subgrants of amounts in excess of
$100,000)
Item 1 7. Page 1 2 of 1 2 12/19/97
(13) Mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are
contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the
Energy Pol icy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-163).
Item 17, Page 1 3 of 1 2 12/19/97
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Table of Contents
I. Purpose
II. Appropriation
III. Authorities
A. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
B. Planning Requirements
IV. National Priority for FY 2003
V. Eligibility
A. Eligible Applicants
B. Eligible Sub-applicants
C. Requirements
VI. Eligible Activities & Associated Costs
A. Mitigation Planning
B. Mitigation Projects
C. Awlicant Management Costs
D. Sub-applicant Management Costs
VII. Ineligible Activities
A. Ineligible Mitigation Projects
B. Cost Overruns and Cost Underruns
C. Duplication of Benefits and Programs
VIII. Application Process
A. FEMA 's electronic grants Ce-Grants) system
B. Content of Grant Awlication
C. Technical Assistance
IX. Cost Share Requirements
A. Small. Impoverished Communities
B. Non-Federal Cost Share
X. Benefit-Cost Analysis
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
II
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
16
18
Page 1
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
A. Methodology 19
B. Documentation 20
XI. Environmental/Historic Preservation Review 21
XIl. Engineering Feasibility 22
XIlI. Technical Assistance 24
A. e-Grants 24
B. Benefit-Cost Analysis 24
C. Environmental/Historical 25
D. Engineering F easibilitv 25
XIV. FEMA Review 25
A. National Benefit-Cost Review Panel 26
B. Environmental and Historic Review 26
C. Engineering Feasibility 27
XV. National Ranking and Evaluation 27
A. National Ranking 27
B. National Evaluation 29
XVI. Selection and Award 30
XVII. Reconsideration 31
XVIII. Scope of Work 31
XIX. Performance Period 32
XX. Extensions 32
XXI. Reporting Requirements 33
A. Federal Cash Transaction Reports 33
B. Financial Status Reports 33
C. Performance Reports 33
D. Final Reports 34
XXII. Other Information 34
Page 2
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
I. Purpose
FEMA will provide Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PD.M) funds to assist States and
communities to reach a higher level of risk management and risk reduction through
hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects and
activities prior to a disaster event. Funds will be used to implement a sustained
pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation program to reduce overall risk to the
population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual
disaster declarations. The PDM program provides a significant opportunity to raise
risk awareness and to reduce the Nation's disaster losses through pre-disas ter
mitigation planning and the implementation of planned, pre-identified, cost-
effective mitigation measures. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, funds will be awarded on
a competitive basis with a National priority on funding mitigation projects that
address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) repetitive flood loss properties.
II. Appropriation
$150 million was provided for the PDM grant program under Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7). In general, grants are to be
awarded on a competitive basis and without reference to State allocations, quotas,
or other formula-based allocation of funds. Funds should be used primarily to
fund mitigation activities that address natural hazards, but multi-hazard projects
and plans also may address hazards caused by non-natural events.
From the $150 million FY 2003 appropriation for the PDM program, $975,000 was
rescinded by a general provision in the law that directs every program, project, and
activity be reduced by0.65 percent. FEMA made available $250,000 ($248,375 after
rescission) to each of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa for State and local hazard mitigation
planning. A Notice of Funding Availability for the PDM planning grants was
published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2003, and the application period
closed on April 30, 2003. $3.6 million of PDM funds will be available through
separate notice as Disaster Resistant University (DRU) grants for pre-disaster
mitigation activities that benefit universities. Approximately $131.5 million is
available for PDM competitive grants, technical assistance and program support.
Ill. Authorities
A Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
The PDM program was authorized by §203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Assistance and Emergency Relief Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5133, as
amended by §102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA), to provide
technical and financial assistance to States and local governments, including
Indian Tribal governments, to assist in the implementation of pre-disaster
hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce
injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property, including damage
to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction of the States or local
governments. The DMA emphasizes the importance of strong State and local
planning and comprehensive program management at the State level.
Purpose.
FEMA will provide Pre-
Disaster Mitigation
(PD.M) funds to assist
States and communities
to reach a higher level of
risk management and
risk reduction through
hazard mitigation
planning and mitigation
construction projects
prior to a disaster event.
Appropriation.
FEMA made available
$250K planning grants
to States and five other
recognized entities for a
total allocation of
$13.75M The Disaster
Resistant University
program will receive
$3 .6M through separate
notice. The remaining
funds will be available
for competitive pre-
disaster mitigation
grants, technical
assistance, and program
support for PDM
Page 3
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
B. Planning Requirements
44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 201 , Hazard Mitigation Planning,
establishes the following criteria for state and local hazard mitigation planning
authorized by §322 of the Stafford Act, as amended by 104 of the DMA.
Local Plans
After November 1, 2003, FEMA-approved local mitigation plans will be
required as a condition of receiving PDM grants for local mitigation project
grants. A local government not having a plan in place by that date will not be
eligible to receive project grants funded under the FY 2004 PDM
appropriations. FEMA is in the process of clarifying language to reflect that
local mitigation plans are not required for project grants awarded with
FY 2003 PDM funds, which were made available for competition as of the
July7, 2003, Notice of Funds Availability.
State Plans
After November 1, 2004, a FEMA-approved Standard State mitigation plan
will be required as a condition of receiving PDM project grants for State and
local mitigation activities. The Standard State Mitigation Plan also will be
required for non-emergency assistance provided under the Stafford Act
following a presidentially declared disaster, including Public Assistance
restoration of damaged facilities (Categories C through G) and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funding.
Currently, any State with a FEMA-approved Enhanced State mitigation plan at
the time of a disaster declaration is eligible to receive increased funds under
the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, based on 20 percent of the total
estimated eligible Stafford Act assistance. Therefore, the development of State
and local multi-hazard mitigation plans is key to maintaining eligibility for
future FEMA funding.
IV. National Priority for FY 2003
For FY 2003, FEMA has established a National priority to fund mitigation projects
that address NFIP repetitive flood loss properties. More specifically, the emphasis
is on addressing repetitive flood loss properties identified in the Pilot NFIP
Repetitive Loss Properties List. A list of these properties for each State will be
provided in electronic format under separate cover for the specific purpose of
supporting mitigation of these structures.
When this information regarding repetitive loss properties is provided to States,
Regions should notify States in writing that the records relating to individuals and
individual properties are being made available through the FEMA routine use
policy for the sole purpose of mitigation, that the records are protected pursuant to
the Privacy Act of 197 4, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and that records should not be publicly
disclosed. FEMA shares this information at its discretion and may choose not to
provide this information to States and communities in the future if it finds that
unauthorized uses of this information have been made.
National Priority.
For FY 2003, the
National priority is
funding mitigation
projects that address
NFIP repetitive flood
loss properties.
Page 4
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Individuals may seek access to their own information from States and communities,
such as whether their property address is on the Pilot NFIP Repetitive Loss
Properties List. Each State should check with the appropriate authority for
information about applicable State public records acts or privacy laws that may
affect the disclosure and use of repetitive loss data.
By focusing on the mitigation of NFIP repetitive flood loss properties through
acquisition, relocation, elevation, floodproofing, and minor structural projects that
save lives and protect property, communities and their residents will be safer from
flood hazards. In addition, fewer families will lose wages and fewer businesses will
suffer reduced profits as a result of flooding. Therefore, States are encouraged to
make NFIP repetitive flood loss properties a State priority in their State rankings of
the sub-applications (see Section VIII.B. Content of Grant Application).
V. Eligibility
A Eligible Applicants
Only the State emergency management agencies or a similar office (i.e., the
office that has emergency management responsibility) of the State, the District
of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, as well as Federally recognized Indian Tribal governments are eligible
to apply to FEMA for assistance as Applicants under this program.
Each State shall designate one Applicant.
In keeping with the intent of FEMA's overall policy, "Government-to-
Government Relations with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal
Governments," published in the January 12, 1999, issue of the Federal
Register, Federally recognized Indian Tribal governments may choose to apply
for PDM grants either through the State as a Sub-applicant or directly to
FEMA as an Applicant. (This choice is independent of a designation under
other FEMA grants and programs.) Some State regulations prohibit the State
from acting as an Applicant for an Indian Tribe. In such cases, or if the Tribe
chooses, the Tribal government may act as its own Applicant. In these cases,
the Tribal government assumes the full responsibilities of a Grantee for the
purposes of administering the grant, if awarded. FEMA has determined that
the unique status of Indian Tribal governments justifies providing them the
option to apply directly to FEMA. However, when legally permitted, Tribal
governments should be encouraged to continue existing relationships with the
State.
B. Eligible Sub-applicants
The following entities are eligible to apply to the Applicant for
assistance: state-level agencies other than the state emergency
management agency; Federally recognized Indian Tribal governments;
and local governments to include State recognized Indian Tribes,
authorized Tribal organizations, and Alaska Native villages. Private
non-profit organizations are not eligible Sub-applicants but may ask
their local government to submit an application on their behalf.
Applicant Eligibility.
Only the State emergency
management agencies or
a similar off ice of
• State
• District of Columbia
• U.S. Virgin Islands
• Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico
• Guam
• American Samoa
• Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana
Islands
• Federally recognized
Indian Tribal
governments
Sub-applicant
Eligibility.
• Other state-level
agencies
•
•
Federally recognized
Indian Tribal
governments
Local governments
Page 5
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
C. Requirements
NFIP Requirements
All Applicants and Sub-applicants must be participating in the NFIP if they
have been identified through the NFIP as having a Special Flood Hazard Area,
and a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) has been issued. In addition, the community must not be on
probation, suspended or withdrawn from the NFIP.
Non-discrimination Requirements
Like other FEMA mitigation programs, the PDM program must be
administered in an equitable and impartial manner, without discrimination on
the grounds of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, age, or economic status.
The PDM program complies with Section 308 of the Stafford Act and Title VI
of the 1964 Gvil Rights Act. All recipients of Federal assistance must comply
with Title VI, including State and local governments distributing Federal
assIStance.
In implementing the PDM program, Applicants and Sub-applicants will ensure
that no discrimination is practiced. Applicants must consider fairness, equity,
and equal access when prioritizing and selecting PDM applications to submit
for funding. Sub-applicants must ensure fairness and equal access to
homeowners and individuals that benefit from property acquisitions,
structures improvements, etc.
O:mflict of Interest
Additionally, Applicants and Sub-applicants must avoid conflicts of interest.
Sub-applicants must comply with the procurement guidelines at 44aR13.36.
Among other requirements, 44aR13.36 urges Sub-applicants to avoid
situations where local officials with oversight authority might benefit
financially from the grant disbursement. Applicants must complywith
guidelines for awarding and administering sub-grants at 44 aR 13.37.
VI. Eligible Activities & Associated Costs
Mitigation planning activities and mitigation projects are eligible activities.
Associated Applicant and Sub-applicant management costs are also eligible. PDM
grants may not duplicate benefits received by or available to the Applicant or Sub-
applicant from any other resource to address the same purpose, and FEMA will
not provide assistance under the PDM program for activities for which another
Federal agency has more specific or primary authority to provide assistance for the
same purpose (see Section VII.C Duplication of Benefits and Programs).
A Mitigation Planning
Mitigation planning activities, including the development of risk assessments
for mitigation plans, planning assistance and delivery of planning workshops,
may be submitted for approval through the competitive process to develop
State, Tribal, and local multi-hazard mitigation plans that meet planning
criteria outlined in 44 aR Part 201 pursuant to 322 of the Stafford Act.
Eligible Activities and
Costs.
• Mitigation planning
• Mitigation projects:
$3M cap Federal share
per project
• Management costs
Page 6
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Countywide or multi-jurisdictional plans may be submitted for funding since
many mitigation issues are better resolved by evaluating hazards in a more
comprehensive fashion, but multi-jurisdictional plans must be adopted by all
jurisdictions covered by the plan. Mitigation planning activities must focus
primarily on natural hazards but also may address hazards caused by non-
natural forces.
The Benefit Cost Analysis and the Environmental and Historic
Preseivation documentation are not necessary for mitigation planning
activities, and therefore, are not required to be submitted with
mitigation planning applications.
Eligible Mapping Activities
To be eligible for funding, mapping activities must be completed as part of a
risk assessment and may not exceed 30 percent of the total funds awarded for
each planning application. Eligible mapping activities are limited to the extent
that these activities are not eligible under the programs of a Federal agency
(see Section VII.C Duplication of Benefits).
Communities are required to make use of already developed materials and to
seek available resources, such as:
• Multi-Hazard Mapping Initiative: http://www.hazardmaps.gov;
• U.S. Geological Survey National Map View:
http:/ I nationalmap.usgs.gov; and,
• HAZUS: http://www.fema.gov/hazus/lk main.shtm
National Priority
Because FEMA's National priority for FY 2003 is to fund proposals that
address NFIP repetitive flood loss properties, communities with NFIP
repetitive flood loss properties are urged to address those properties in their
risk assessment and plan development. For example, State and local plans
may refer to geographic areas or neighborhoods where concentrations of
repetitive loss properties are located for the purpose of identifying and
prioritizing those areas for mitigation activities, or plans may list the number
of repetitive loss properties with aggregate repetitive loss data. However,
States and communities should not attach lists of repetitive loss properties in
their plans or otherwise make information relevant to individual properties,
such as property owner names, addresses, and claims data, available to the
public.
Information Dissemination
As part of the competitive grant, up to 10 percent of the funds awarded for
mitigation planning may be used for information dissemination activities
regarding cost-effective mitigation technologies. These activities may include
marketing and outreach (brochures, videos, etc.) and must relate to the
proposed mitigation planning activity.
Page 7
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Pre-Award Costs
FEMA may provide planning pre-award costs at FEMA's discretion
and as funds are available. Eligible costs incurred prior to the grant
award are identified as pre-award costs and must be submitted with the
planning sub-application. Recipients may be reimbursed for pre-award
costs incurred up to six months prior to the publication of the
Notice of Funding Availability for activities directly related to the
development of the proposed planning activity, such as risk
assessments.
B. Mitigation Projects
Multi-hazard mitigation projects must primarily focus on natural
hazards but also may address hazards caused by non-natural forces.
Funding is restricted to a maximum of $3M Federal share per
project. The following are eligible mitigation projects:
• Acquisition or relocation of hazard-prone property for . . . convemon to open space m perpetwty;
• Structural and non-structural retrofitting of existing buildings
and facilities (including designs and feasibility studies when
included as part of the construction project) for wildfire,
seismic, wind or flood hazards (e.g., elevation, floodproofing,
storm shutters, hurricane clips);
• Minor structural hazard control or protection projects that
may include vegetation management, stormwater
management (e.g., culverts, floodgates, retention basins), or
shoreline/landslide stabilization; and,
• Localized flood control projects, such as certain ring levees
and floodwall systems, that are designed specifically to
protect critical facilities and that do not constitute a section
of a larger flood control system.
Mitigation Project Requirements
Projects should be technically feasible (see Section XII. Engineering
Feasibilicy? and ready to implement. Engineering designs for projects must be
included in the application to allow FEMA to assess the effectiveness and
feasibility of the proposed project. The project cost estimate should
complement the engineering design, including all anticipated costs. FEMA
has several formats that it uses in cost estimating for projects. Additionally,
other Federal agencies' approaches to project cost estimating can be used as
long as the method provides for a complete and accurate estimate. FEMA can
provide technical assistance on engineering documentation and cost estimation
(see Section XIII.D. Engineering Feasibilicy?.
Mitigation projects also must meet the following criteria:
1. Be cost-effective and substantially reduce the risk of future damage,
hardship, loss, or suffering resulting from a major disaster, consistent
Page 8
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
with 44 CFR 206.434(c)(5) and related guidance, and have a Benefit-
Cost Analysis that results in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater (see
Section X Benefit-Cost Analysis). Mitigation projects with a
benefit-cost ratio less than 1.0 will not be considered for the PDM
competitive grant program;
2. Be in conformance with the current FEMA-approved State hazard
mitigation plan;
3. Solve a problem independently or constitute a functional portion of a
solution where there is assurance that the project as a whole will be
completed, consistent with 44 CFR 206.434(b)(4);
4. Be in conformance with 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and
Protection of Wetlands, and 44 CFR Part 10, consistent with 44 CFR
206.434(c)(3);
5. Not duplicate benefits available from another source for the same
purpose, including assistance that another Federal agency or program
has the primary authority to provide (see Section VII.C Duplication of
Benefits and Programs);
6. Be located in a community that is participating in the NFIP if they have
been identified through the NFIP as having a Special Flood Hazard
Area (a FHBM or FIRM has been issued). In addition, the community
must not be on probation, suspended or withdrawn from the NFIP;
and,
7. Meet the requirements of Federal, State, and local laws.
Property Acquisition and Relocation Requirements
For property acquisition and relocation projects, Applicants and Sub-
applicants must comply with additional requirements consistent with
44 CFR 206.434(e). Sub-applicants receiving assistance for a real
property acquisition or building relocation will enter into an agreement
with the Applicant, subject to FEMA concurrence. The agreement
should include the deed restriction that the local government will
record with each property deed (see the Model Deed Restriction in
Attachment III). PDM applications for open space acquisition
projects without these fonnal assurances will not be entertained.
The agreement will provide assurances that:
• The prospective participants were informed in writing that
participation in the program is voluntary and that the local
government will not use its eminent domain authority to
acquire their property for the project should negotiations
fail.
• The local government agrees that land acquired for open
space purposes under PDM will be restricted in perpetuity
to open space uses and will be unavailable for construction
of flood damage reduction levees, transportation facilities ,
and other purposes.
Page 9
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
• The local government accepts all of the requirements of the
deed restriction governing the use of the PDM grant and
use of the land.
• In consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
local government has addressed and considered the
potential future use of these lands for the construction of
flood damage reduction levees, has rejected consideration of
such measures in the future in the project area, and instead
has chosen to proceed with acquisition of permanent open
space.
• The local government has coordinated with the State
Department of Transportation to ensure that no future,
planned improvements or enhancements are under
consideration that will affect the proposed project area.
• Existing buildings will be removed within 90 days of
settlement.
For acquisition projects, changes to the properties in an approved
mitigation project will be considered, as long as the substitution does
not change the overall nature of the project or increase the amount of
the Federal share; however, these changes will not be approved
automatically (See Section XVIII. Scope of Work). The Applicant
must identify alternate properties in the project application, including
providing a BCA for each alternate property. The alternate properties
should not be included in the cost estimate or the overall project BCA.
Communities considering the purchase of commercial or industrial
property should ensure that the owner provides information
identifying what, if any, hazardous materials are on the property.
Before purchasing commercial or industrial properties, the community
must require the owner to remove hazardous materials and containers.
The owner must provide a clean-site certification from the appropriate
State agency before the community can purchase any interest in the
property, including easements for development rights. When the
community purchases easements for development rights only, the
seller must also agree to indemnify the State, FEMA, and the
community for any liability arising from previous contamination of the
property.
The presence of non-leaking underground storage tanks, septic
systems, home heating oil tanks, and normal quantities of lead,
asbestos, and household hazardous materials does not preclude the use
of PDM funds for acquisition. However, local permitting ordinances
should be followed. The costs of removing these should be addressed
in the project budget.
Page 10
Anachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Proiect Maintenance
FEMA is not responsible for maintaining the project after the initial
implementation. FEMA will not pay for any future maintenance, such
as mowing open space or ensuring hurricane shutters are operable.
Sub-applicants should develop a maintenance plan that identifies the
maintenance tasks, schedules and budgets.
Information Dissemination
A5 part of the competitive grant, up to 10 percent of the funds
awarded for mitigation projects may be used for information
dissemination activities regarding cost-effective mitigation
technologies. These activities may include marketing and outreach
(brochures, videos, etc.) and must relate to the proposed mitigation
proJect.
Pre-Award Costs
FEMA may provide project pre-award costs at FEMA's discretion and
as funds are available. Eligible costs incurred prior to the grant award
are identified as pre-award costs and must be submitted with the
project sub-application. Recipients may be reimbursed for pre-award
costs incurred up to six months prior to the publication of the
Notice of Funding Availability for activities directly related to the
development of the proposed project. Activities may include, but are
not limited to, Benefit-Cost Analysis, environmental consideration
documentation processing, and engineering design. Pre-award costs
associated with construction activities started prior to grant award will
not be considered.
C. Applicant Management Costs
Applicants may request up to 10 percent of the total planning and project
grant funding requested for management costs to support the solicitation,
review and processing of PDM sub-applications and awards, and to provide
technical assistance to Sub-applicants, including assisting Sub-applicants with
Benefit-Cost Analysis and environmental and historic preservation
documentation. If requested, indirect costs must be included as part of
management costs and must be supported with a current Indirect Cost Rate
approved by a Federal Cognizant Agency. However, in no case will the
amount of funding awarded for management costs exceed 10 percent of the
total amount awarded for mitigation planning and project sub-grants. There
is no exception to increase Applicant management costs.
Applicants that request management costs must submit a separate sub-
application for their management costs. If thee-Grants system is used,
Applicants should use the Technical hsistance/Management Costs sub-
application. Management costs must be supported with source documentation.
Management costs will not factor into the competitive evaluation of planning
or project proposals submitted by the Applicant and do not need a Benefit
Cost Analysis. Funding for Applicant management costs will not be awarded
until all planning and project sub-applications have been awarded to ensure
Management Costs.
Management costs are
allowable for Applicants
and Sub-Applicants.
Page 11
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
that Applicant management costs do not exceed 10 percent of the total
planning and project sub-grant awards. Management costs will be awarded
to successful applicants at the end of the award process. Management
costs will be cost shared with up to 75 percent of eligible costs provided by
FEMA and at least 25 percent provided by a non-Federal source.
Pre-Award Costs
Eligible costs incurred prior to the grant award are identified as pre-award
costs. Pre-award costs are limited to costs incurred after publication of
the Notice of Funds Availability.
D. Sub-applicant Management Costs
Sub-applicants may request a maximum of 5 percent of the total grant funding
requested for management costs to support approved planning activities or
projects. Management costs must be supported with source documentation.
Sub-applicants that request management costs must include them in their
planning or project sub-application. Sub-applicant management costs must be
included as part of the planning activity or project costs and, therefore, must
be included in the Benefit Cost Analysis for projects. If requested,
indirect costs must be included as part of the management costs and must be
supported with a current Indirect Cost Rate approved by a Federal Cognizant
Agency. However, in no case will the total Federal share for any project,
including management costs, exceed $3 million. There is no exception to
increase Sub-applicant management costs.
Pre-Award Costs
Eligible costs incurred prior to the grant award are identified as pre-award
costs. Pre-award costs are limited to costs incurred after publication of
the Notice of Funds Availability and must be included in the project or
planning sub-application.
VII. Ineligible Activities
A Ineligible Mitigation Projects
The following mitigation projects are not eligible for the PDM
program:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Major flood control projects such as dikes, levees,
floodwalls, seawalls, groins, jetties, dams, waterway
channelization, beach nourishment or renourishment;
Warning systems;
Engineering designs that are not integral to a proposed
project;
Fea:>ibility studies that are not integral to a proposed
project;
Drainage studies that are not integral to a proposed project;
Generators that are not integral to a proposed project;
Phased or partial projects;
Flood studies or flood mapping; and,
Response and communication equipment .
Ineligible
Activities
(partial list):
• Major flood control
projects
• Engineering designs
not integral to a
proposed project
• Feasibility studies not
integral to a
proposed project
• Flood studies or
flood mapping
• Response and
commurucation
eqwpment .
Page 12
Anachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
B. Cost Ovenuns and Cost Undenuns
The PDM program is a competitive grant program and, therefore,
Federal award amounts are final. There will be no additional FEMA
funding beyond the initial allocation. FEMA will not cover cost
ovenuns associated with grant activities. All costs for which
funding is requested should be included in the original application
budget. Mitigation project applications should include the cost of the
cost of engineering designs; performing the Benefit C.ost Analysis; the
cost of obtaining any environmentaVhistoric permits and clearances;
and the cost of any anticipated environmentaVhistoric compliance
measures, treatments, or alternatives identified through the
development of the environmental documentation.
Unexpended funds, or cost underruns, remaining after the
performance period expiration date must be reported to FEMA for
de-obligation. C.ost underruns from one Sub-grantee cannot be used
to meet another Sub-grantee's cost overrun.
C. Duplication of Benefits and Programs
Duplication of Benefits
PDM grants may not duplicate benefits received by or available to the
Applicant or Sub-applicant from insurance, other assistance programs, legal
awards, or any other resource to address the same purpose. An Applicant
must notify us of all benefits that are received or anticipated by the Applicant
or Sub-applicant from other sources for the same purpose, and Applicants and
Sub-applicants must seek all such benefits available to them FEMA will
reduce the grant by the amounts available for the same purpose from another
source. If FEMA provides assistance under this program when other benefits
are available to an Applicant or Sub-applicant, the Applicant will be liable to
FEMA for any duplicative amounts that are received or available to the
Applicant or Sub-applicant from other sources, and must repay FEMA for
such amounts.
Duplication of Programs
FEMA will not provide assistance under the PDM program for activities for
which another Federal agency has more specific or primary authority to
provide assistance for the same purpose. FEMA may disallow or recoup
amounts that fall within another Federal agency's authority.
VIII. Application Process
The grant applications must be received by the Director of the Applicant's
respective Regional Office (see FEMA Regional Office addresses in Section XXII.
Other Information) by midnight Eastern Time, October 6, 2003. Sub-
applicants should consult the official designated point of contact in their
State/Tribe for more information pertaining to their application process.
Application Deadline.
Grant applications from
States, Tribes, and
Federally recognized Indian
Tribal governments must
be received by the
appropriate FEMA
Regional Office by
midnight Eastern Time,
October 6, 2003.
Page 13
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
A FEMA's electronic grants (e-Grants) system
FEMA's electronic grants (e-Grants) system should be used by Applicants and
Sub-applicants whenever possible. FEMA's e-Grants system is a user-friendly
format that may substitute for the paper-based process in that Sub-applicants'
applications are electronically transmitted to the Applicant for review and
action. FEMA has developed thee-Grants system to meet the intent of the
eGovernment initiative authorized by Public Law 106-107, passed on
November 20, 1999. This initiative requires that all government agencies both
streamline grant application processes and provide for the means to
electronically create, review, and submit a grant application via the Internet.
Use of thee-Grants system will speed FEMA's review and evaluation of the
applications for the PDM program. Applicants that use e-Grants must
submit applications by midnight, Eastern Time, October 6, 2003. The
seiver will not accept applications after that time.
FEMA will use the information transmitted through thee-Grants system to
evaluate applications and make award decisions, monitor ongoing
performance and manage the flow of federal funds, and close out the grant
award when all work is completed. If an Applicant does not use the e-Grants
system, the Applicant may submit a paper application, which can be obtained
from the FEMA Regional Office (see Section XXII. Other Information).
B. Gmtent of Grant Application
• Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424;
• Budget Information -Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-15; or
• Budget Information -Non-Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-20;
• Budget Narrative explaining cost items that have been budgeted;
• Summary Sheet for Assurances and Certification, FEMA Form 20-16;
• Assurances -Non-Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-16A; or,
• Assurances -Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-16B;
• Certification Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsible Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements, FEMA
Form 20-16C;
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, Standard Form LLL;
• Approved Indirect Cost Agreement, if applicable;
• Documentation to support non-Federal cost share and Sub-applicant
status as a small, impoverished community, if appropriate, for Federal
cost share of up to 90 percent (see section IX. Cost Share
Requirements);
• Documentation for the hazard risk assessment for mitigation planning
activities (see Supplemental Questions for National Ranking and
Evaluation in Attachment II);
• Complete Benefit-Cost Analysis documentation for mitigation projects.
Mitigation planning activities do not require a Benefit-Cost Analysis
(see section X. Benefit-Cost Analysis);
• Program Narrative for all sub-applications for which PDM funding is
requested. The Applicant must rank each sub-application in order
Page 14
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
of their priority. Each sub-application must be assigned a unique rank
(i.e., only one number 1 rank). The Program Narrative should include:
1) Individual activity location and name of Sub-applicant;
2) Timeline/ schedule for each activity;
3) Individual activity costs, including Federal and non-Federal shares;
4) Activity-specific scopes of work, including a list of properties (and
alternative properties) for mitigation projects. The property
information history must include owner name, address, type of
structure, year built, NFIP and FIRM information, repetitive loss
statistics, if any, property action, and Benefit-C.ost Analysis;
5) Alternatives to the proposed mitigation project considered to
address the hazard identified;
6) Documentation of engineering feasibility and design (see Section
XII. Engineering Feasibility);
7) Certification that the Applicant has evaluated the included activities,
that they meet all PDM program eligibility criteria, and that they will
be implemented in accordance with 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and C.ooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments;
8) Responses to the Supplemental Questions for each sub-applicant
activity for competitive ranking and evaluation (see Supplemental
Questions for National Ranking and Evaluation in Attachment II);
9) Recommendations and documentation regarding the environmental
review required by44 C.ode of Federal Regulations (O'R) Part 10,
Environmental C.onsiderations, and other applicable laws and
executive orders, including responses to established questions, for
mitigation projects and complete environmentaVhistoric
documentation (see Section XI. EnvironmentaV Historic Review
and EnvironmentaVHistoric Preservation Guidance and
Established Questions in Attachment V); and,
10) Assurance that the Sub-application is complete and addresses all
program requirements including the Supplemental Questions
(Attachment II), thereby meeting the program criteria outlined
under §203(g) of the Stafford Act.
C. Technical Assistance
FEMA will provide technical assistance to both Applicants and Sub-applicants
throughout the application process (see Section XIII. Technical Assistance).
IX. Cost Share Requirements
FEMA will contribute up to 75 percent of the total amount approved under the
grant award, to implement approved activities. At least 25 percent of the total
eligible costs must be provided from a non-Federal source.
A Small, Impoverished C.Ommunities
Grants awarded to small, impoverished communities may receive a Federal
cost share of up to 90 percent of the total amount approved under the grant
Cost-share.
75% Federal cost-share.
Small, impoverished
communmes may
receive up to 90%
Federal cost-share.
Page 15
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
award, to implement eligible approved activities. Documentation should be
submitted with the application to support the eligibility for a higher FEMA
cost share. A small, impoverished community must meet all of the following
cntena:
• It must be a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is
identified by the State as a rural community, and is not a remote
area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city;
• It must be economically disadvantaged, with residents having an
average per capita annual income not exceeding 80 percent of
national per capita income, based on best available data. According
to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
the per capita personal income for the United States in 2002 was
$30,941;
• It must have a local unemployment rate that exceeds by one
percentage point or more, the most recently reported, average yearly
national unemployment rate. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the average unemployment rate for 2002 was 5.8
percent; and
• It must meet any other factors as determined by the State in which
the community is located.
B. Non-Federal Cost Share
The non-Federal cost share must be in direct support of the approved
activities and must be an eligible cost for PDM funding. All contributions,
cash and in-kind or any combination, may be accepted as part of the non-
Federal cost share. In lieu of requesting pre-award costs, Applicants and Sub-
applicants may submit eligible costs incurred prior to award for eligible
activities as their non-Federal cost share (see Section VI. Eligible Activities
and Associated Costs).
Generally, the non-Federal cost share may not include funds from other
Federal agencies, except for Federal funds that have authorizing statutes that
explicitly allow the funds to be used as cost share for other Federal grants.
Examples include:
• Department of Housing and Urban Development Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies may be used as cost
share for property acquisition projects as long as the projects are
eligible under the CDBG program.
• The U.S. Small Business Administration loan funds and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency loan funds,
which lose their Federal identity once the loan to the individual is
approved, may be used as cost share.
• Indian Health Services funds may be used as cost share for PDM
funds as long as the mitigation activity "contributes to the purposes
for which grants ... are made" under the Indian Health Services
statute.
• Bureau of Indian Affairs funds may be used as cost share.
Page 16
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
• Appalachian Regional Commission funds may be used as cost
share, per Section 302(a)(3) of the Appalachian Regional
Development Act of 1965.
The NFIP Increased Cost of Compliance (ICQ claim payment from previous
flood events can be used to meet the non-Federal cost share requirement, to
the extent that the period for making such a claim remains open. ICC
insurance coverage provides a claim payment for qualified owners' costs to
elevate, demolish, relocate, or floodproof (non-residential buildings only) after
a flood. The maximum amount of I CC coverage as of May 1, 2003, is
$30,000. Because these types of activities are also eligible PDM activities,
owners cannot receive PDM funds for the same costs covered by their I CC
claim. However, if the insurance claim does not pay the total mitigation cost,
then a PDM grant can pay the cost of eligible activities above the ICC claim
payment.
PDM funds do not lose their Federal identity and cannot be used as cost share
for another Federally funded activity. In addition, neither Federal PDM
program funds nor non-Federal funds used to cost share the PDM program
can be used as cost share for another Federal grant program
Cost Share Documentation
Requirements for in-kind contributions can be found in 44CFR13.24. In-
kind contributions must be comprised of eligible program costs. All of the
following documentation is required for third-party cash and in-kind
contributions:
• Record of donor;
• Dates of donation;
• Rates for staffing, equipment or usage, supplies, etc.;
• Amounts of donation; and
• Deposit slips for cash contributions.
Cost Share Extensions
If the non-Federal cost share requirement cannot be met by the application
deadline, due to pending State and/ or local legislative approval or fiscal year
timelines, the Applicant must do all of the following:
• Submit the application by the application deadline with a
notation of the delay of cost share availability in the Budget
Narrative;
• Submit a letter to the FEMA Regional Director along with the
application explaining the reason for the delay and provide
assurance that the cost share will be available by November 5, 2003;
and,
• Provide a written certification to the FEMA Regional Director by
November 5, 2003, that the cost share has been approved and is
available for use if the application is selected by FEMA
Page 17
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
X. Benefit-Cost Analysis
PDM is a competitive grant program and, as such, must emphasize funding the
most cost-effective mitigation activities. A Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) will be
required for all mitigation projects. FEMA will not perform the BCA and will not
consider project applications without a BCA for the PDM program Technical
assistance is available to help Applicants and Sub-applicants develop BCAs (see
Section XIII. Technical Assistance). The actual cost of performing the BCA and
providing supporting documentation may be included by the Sub-applicant as part
of the proposed project costs and by the Applicant as management costs. A BCA
is not required for mitigation planning activities.
BCA is a well-established method for quantitatively comparing the benefits and
costs of mitigation projects. The end result is a benefit-cost ratio, which equals a
project's total net benefits divided by its total cost. The Applicant is required to
perlorm a BCA for all properties, including repetitive flood loss properties
and substantially damaged properties. For projects that address multiple
structures (e.g., acquisition or elevation), the benefit-cost ratio is calculated by
totaling the benefits for each structure to obtain the total project benefits, and
dividing by the total project cost. Mitigation projects with a benefit-cost ratio
less than 1.0 will not be considered for the PDM competitive grant program.
The benefit-cost ratio is a critical factor in the National Ranking (see Section
XIV.A National Ranking); therefore, mitigation projects with higher benefit-cost
ratios will be more competitive. This distinction impacts the traditional
demonstration of cost effectiveness. Generally, other FEMA mitigation programs
have a minimum regulatory requirement stipulating that projects must demonstrate
cost effectiveness via a benefit cost ratio of at least 1.0 but do not necessarily
require maximizing the benefit-cost ratio. To enhance a project's competitiveness
for PDM, Applicants are encouraged to conduct a thorough BCA that
demonstrates the maximum benefits associated with their mitigation project.
FEMA's BCAs are governed by guidance from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). OMB Grcular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-
Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, describes the economic principles and methods
by which most Federal programs must determine the cost-effectiveness (i.e.,
benefit-cost ratio) of funded projects. The benefits of mitigation projects are
avoided damages, losses, and casualties. Examples of common benefits include
avoided or reduced:
• Damages to buildings, contents or infrastructure;
• Economic impacts of loss of function of buildings
-Displacement costs for temporary quarters
-Loss of public services
-Loss of net business income;
• Economic impacts of loss of function of infrastructure
-Road or bridge closures
-Loss of utility services; and
• Deaths and injuries.
Benefit-Cost Analysis.
• A Benefit-Cost Analysis
will be required for all . . rruugauon proJeCts.
• A BCA for all
properties, including
repetitive flood loss
properties and
substantially damaged
properties, is required.
• A Benefit-Cost Analysis
is not required for
planning activities.
Page 18
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
OMB guidance excludes indirect benefits or "multiplier" effects, for example long-
term changes in regional economic activity, future employment, and tourism, which
are not directly linked to the project. For further details of categories of benefits
that may or may not be counted see ''What is a Benefit?" located on the Mitigation
BCA Toolkit CD (see Section XIII. Technical Assistance). This document
provides standardized benefit categories, approaches, and data inputs for many . . common rruugauon pro1ects.
If the Applicant or Sub-applicant is submitting a project for which FEMA
performed the BCA in the past, the Applicant or Sub-applicant certifies that they
accept the BCA as their own by submitting it as part of their application.
Applicants or Sub-applicants submitting projects prepared for other FEMA
mitigation programs are encouraged to revisit those analyses to ensure they
demonstrate maximum project benefits.
A Methodology
Applicants and Sub-applicants are strongly encouraged to use FEMA's BCA
software for their analyses. The software can be obtained free from FEMA by
contacting the BCA hotline (see Section XIII. Technical Assistance) or the
FEMA Regional Office (see Section XXII.B. Regional O:mtact Information).
Using FEMA software will ensure that the calculation is done in accordance
with FEMA's standardized methods and approaches and will facilitate the
application review process.
The OMB-mandated discount rate for the PDM program is 7 pen:ent.
An adjustment can either increase or decrease benefits and the benefit-cost
ratio as well. This discount rate is incozporated into all FEMA software
programs as a default and should not be modified.
Alternative non-FEMA BCA software also may be used, but only if the
FEMA Regional Office and FEMA Headquarters approve the software in
advance. The Applicant must provide verification with the application that
FEMA has approved the other BCA software or methods. An e-mail or letter
signed and dated by FEMA is considered appropriate verification.
Applications using BCAs conducted with non-FEMA software, which is
not approved in advance by FEMA will not be considered for the PDM
program.
FEMA has developed a simplified, alternative methodology to conduct the
BCA, which may be used in lieu of a traditional BCA, for certain properties
insured under the NFIP and included in the Pilot NFIP Repetitive Loss
Properties List. The list of properties and the guidance for using this
alternative approach is being provided to the FEMA Regional Offices under
separate cover (information on the alternative approach to determine cost
effectiveness is available for Applicants and Sub-applicants on the FEMA
website: www.fema.gov/fima/pdm.shtm). The Pilot NFIP Repetitive Loss
properties can be combined in a project with other repetitive flood loss
Page 19
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
properties and/ or non-repetitive flood loss properties; however, the
alternative cost-effectiveness approach may only be used for the Pilot NFIP
Repetitive Loss properties, and an aggregate benefit-cost ratio must be
calculated for the project.
B. Documentation
A National Benefit-Cost Review Panel will be convened to review and
evaluate all BCAs (see Section XIV.A National Benefit-Cost Review PaneQ.
The evaluation will be based solely on the documentation provided in the
project application. FEMA will not contact Applicants to request a~ditional
information or clarification on BCA documentation in the application.
Applications that do not include documentation will not be considered
for PDM funding.
The documentation must support figures, assumptions, data derivation or
calculation methods used in the BCA Applicants should provide full and
credible documentation, which:
1) clearly explains the data used in the analysis, including the source;
2) is well organized; and
3) provides references to the appropriate parts of the analysis.
Applicants should include surveys, copies of elevation certificates, and copies
of appropriate sections of Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) and FIRMs. A good
rule of thumb to observe is that a knowledgeable subject matter expert should
be able to reproduce the BCA based on a review of the documentation
without any additional explanation.
For each project BCA in a grant application, Applicants should provide a copy
of each page of the analysis used, whether the BCA was performed using
FEMA software or using alternative software that was approved in advance by
FEMA. It is highly recommended that an electronic version of the BCA be
provided as well. If thee-Grants system is used, Applicants should provide
either paper or electronic attachments to support the information submitted
through e-Grants.
The credibility of data sources is also extremely important. FEMA
recommends obtaining information from published technical sources, in
particular engineering studies such as FISs and technical web sites such as
those operated by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and a range of academic organizations and State
agencies. Professional licensure is strongly preferred in all cases (e.g., a
licensed structural engineer to provide fragility curves for an earthquake
mitigation project). In addition, data from FEMA software and values from
FEMA guidance will be accepted as completely credible.
Page 20
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
XI. Environmental/Historic Preservation Review
All PDM activities must comply with a variety of Federal environmental and
historic preservation laws and Executive Orders prior to the award of funds. The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the
National Historic Preservation Act, and Executive Orders on Wetlands,
Floodplains and Environmental Justice are among those laws and Executive
orders for which final Federal review is required. In accordance with 44 CFR
10.8d(2)(ill), FEMA has determined that mitigation planning activities have no
impact on the environment and will require no further environmental or historic
preservation review. Therefore, enviromnental or historic preservation
documentation is not required for planning activities. However, mitigation
projects will require some environmental review, with construction type activities
usually needing more extensive review, or even an environmental assessment and
the identification of alternatives. Since compliance with one or more of these laws
may affect the cost or feasibility of implementing a project, it is important that Sub-
applicants understand what aspects of their project might trigger compliance
reqwrements.
For selected mitigation projects that require any level of enviromnental
review or an enviromnental assessment, funds will not be awarded and the
project cannot be initiated until FEMA has completed its review. Technical
assistance will be available to the Regions to consult with regulatory/ resource
agencies and make recommendations regarding compliance measures required to
address the environmentaVhistoric impacts of selected projects.
Although the final environmentaVhistoric review will occur after the National
Ranking and Evaluation process, much of the data collection and review process
will be accomplished by the Sub-applicant as they are developing their application.
FEMA will not award the grant and the Sub-applicant may not initiate
construction until FEMA has completed its review. FEMA and the
Applicant should complete the Enviromnental/Historic Preservation review
within 9 months of selection or the project may not be funded.
The EnvironmentaVHistoric Preservation Guidance & Established Questions (see
Attachment V) will lead Applicants and Sub-applicant through the various
environmental and historic review requirements. If thee-Grants system is used,
the EnvironmentaVHistoric Preservation Guidance & Established Questions are
provided in the EnvironmentaVHistoric section of the electronic grant application.
FEMA will provide technical assistance to Applicants and Sub-applicants on
EnvironmentaVHistorical compliance (see Section XIII. Technical Assistance) but
will not complete the EnvironmentaVHistoric Established Questions or
documentation for the Applicant or Sub-applicant. FEMA will review the
completeness of the responses to the Established Questions and supponing
documentation for submitted projects (see Section XIV. FEMA Review) and will
not consider projects with incomplete responses or supporting
documentation.
Environmental/Historic
Preservation Review.
Once a project is selected
through the National
Ranking and Evaluation
process, the Regional
Offices will be responsible
for environmentaV
historical preservation
reviews. Funds will not be
awarded and the project
cannot be initiated until
FEMA has completed its
review.
FEMA will not consider
applications without
complete responses to the
EnvironmentaVHistorical
Preservation Established
Questions and supponing
documentation.
Page 21
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Early identification of environmental and historic issues will enable the Sub-
applicant to plan for and address the impacts of the project and, ultimately, simplify
the review process. The Sub-applicant must provide information of the potential
impacts of their proposed project on various environmental or historic resources.
While permits, formal consultations, or clearances are not required with the initial
application, Sub-applicants should communicate with appropriate parties to obtain
sufficient information to be able to describe clearly how the requirements of these
various laws will or will not affect the proposal.
Sub-applicants will implement any environmental or historic preservation
mitigation actions specifically required of them in relation to project approval.
Environmental treatment measures are conditions of the grant award, and if
not carried out as agreed upon, FEMA will rescind the grant. Such measures
include recordation or relocation of historic structures, Phase III archeological data
recovery, protection for endangered species, etc. All costs associated with
anticipated environmental/historic preservation compliance measures identified
through the review and consultation process may be cost shared if included as part
of the project budget at the time of application submission. The amount of the
Federal share will not be increased to cover any additional costs identified
after the application deadline. The Applicant or Sub-applicant may determine
whether or not to accept the grant award based on the estimated additional cost of
the treatment measures.
To enhance proposal competitiveness and expedite the environmental approval
process, the Applicant should carefully identify and analyze environmental and
historic preservation impacts to determine if they would require any changes to the
design, scope, or location of the project or require mitigation that could affect the
overall project cost or feasibility.
XII. Engineering Feasibility
If an Applicant or Sub-applicant proposes to use a new technology, information
should be provided regarding laboratory test, field-testing, and similar items. Other
alternatives that were considered to address the hazard should be identified. If
there is still some residual risk to the facility anticipated after the proposed project's
implementation, this should be clearly identified.
All technical information that the Applicant or Sub-applicant believes is pertinent
to this review should be included in the application. For some projects,
photographs, sketches or drawings may help to illustrate the scope or the project or
the problem that it addresses. FEMA will review the engineering feasibility
documentation (see Section XIV.D. Engineering Feasibility).
The following are examples to give some idea of the types of information that help
demonstrate engineering feasibility. They do not represent complete information
that may be needed to demonstrate engineering feasibility for a particular project.
Page 22
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Completed conceptual design
The hazards in the community should be defined. The specific hazards that the
proposed project addresses should be identified. If other hazards are not being
addressed by the project, it should be briefly explained why these were not
considered in the project or do not need to be considered.
Example: The project proposes retrofitting a medical facility with shutters
to prevent wind damage. The community is prone to hurricane winds and
flooding. The application should identify why the wind retrofit has
identified shutters as the feasible project, but other features of the building
are not included in the project. It should be noted in the application how
or if the facility will be affected by the other hazard, flooding. Photographs
of the building site, windows and other features of the building are
included.
Basis of design
The specific basis of the engineering design for the project should be identified.
Examples include:
• the engineering standard that is being used in design;
• the building code/ edition that is being used;
• the level of performance for which the project is designed; or
• an adopted practice by the applicant for similar facilities that they own.
If the project potentially has an effect on hazards at other facilities, these should be
identified.
Example: The project proposes replacing culvert pipe with a larger sized
culvert pipe, and a new headwall. The applicant should describe the flow
and frequency of event that can be handled by the new culvert pipe. The
county has adopted a state standard for crossings that is being used on this
project and future projects. (This standard and its pertinent sections are
referenced). The applicant has noted that the change in conveyance of
floodwaters will cause a small increase in flood levels downstream on
county-owned parkland, but will not increase damages to downstream
properties. This project is identified in a study that the community
conducted on the entire watershed. The applicable portion of the state
standard has been copied and is included in application. A site map
showing the culvert location and the watershed is included. Photographs of
the area downstream of the culvert are included.
Scope of work and cost estimate
The project should be identified in specific enough details, so that material, labor
and other costs associated with the project can be identified. The cost estimating
tools used should be specifically identified and a cost estimate must be provided.
Some of the cost estimating tools may include: national cost estimating guides; an
applicant's own cost estimating guides; an estimate based on bids; or an estimate
based on awarded contracts for similar work The amount of the Federal share will
Page 23
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
not be increased to cover any additional costs identified after the application
deadline.
Example: The project proposed replacing a roof on an existing musewn
building. The roof is a low-slope roof with internal drainage only, in an
area subject to snow and rainfall that may clog the drains. The project will
completely remove the existing roof, install tapered insulation and place
scuppers at the exterior wall locations. The applicant has identified the size
of the roof and has included a roof plan and roof sections and calculated
the materials and labor needed to complete the job. The applicant has
awarded a similar roofing job two years ago that they have used to estimate
the costs of this project. The applicant has included a copy of the costs for
the other job, comparison of scope of work between the completed job and
the proposed job, and updated the costs for the proposed project based a
national cost estimating guide.
XIII. Technical Assistance
FEMA will provide technical assistance to both Applicants and Sub-applicants
throughout the application process by answering questions about the PDM
program, the application process, e-Grants, BCA, engineering feasibility, and
Environmental/Historical Preservation compliance. FEMA will assist Applicants
in developing and conducting workshops on BCA and Environmental/Historic
compliance for Sub-applicants. However, FEMA will neither complete the
application for the Applicant nor favor one Applicant or Sub-applicant over the
other in the competitive application process. Applicants and Sub-applicants should
contact their FEMA Regional Office for all technical assistance (see Section
XXII.B. Regional Contact Information). Any technical assistance provided will be
coordinated through FEMA Headquarters to ensure consistent treatment of all
applicants.
A e-Gr.mts
FEMA will provide technical assistance to Applicants and Sub-applicants on
completing applications in thee-Grant system FEMA has established an
e-Grants Helpdesk, which can be reached via telephone: 1-866-476-0544 or
e-mail: mtegrants@fema.gov.
B. Benefit-Cost Analysis
FEMA will provide technical assistance and training to Applicants and Sub-
applicants regarding how to perform a BCA but will not do the BCA for the
Applicant or Sub-applicant. If the Applicant or Sub-applicant is submitting a
project for which FEMA performed the BCA in the past, the Applicant or
Sub-applicant certifies that they accept the BCA as their own by submitting it
as part of their application. Applicants or Sub-applicants submitting projects
prepared for other FEMA mitigation programs are encouraged to revisit those
analyses to ensure they demonstrate maximwn project benefits.
FEMA has established a Benefit-Cost Analysis Hotline for Applicants and
Sub-applicants and guarantees a 48-hour response time. The Hotline will
Page 24
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
provide BCA software, technical manuals, and other BCA references as well as
technical support for BCA. The Hotline number is (301)-670-3399, extension
710 (toll free starting July 31, 2003, at (866) 222-3580). The e-mail address is
bchotline@urscorp.com.
FEMA has prepared a Benefit-Cost Analysis Toolkit m. This m includes
all of the FEMA BCA software, technical manuals, BCA training courses, and
other supporting documentation and guidance. The FEMA BCA Toolkit m
is available free from FEMA by contacting the Benefit-Cost Analysis Hotline
or the FEMA Regional Office (see Section XXI. B. Regional Contact
Information).
C. Environmental/Historical
FEMA will provide technical assistance and training to Applicants and Sub-
applicants regarding how to complete the Environmental/Historic
Preservation Established Questions but will not complete the Established
Questions or any supporting documentation for the Applicant or Sub-
applicant. For further information, see Attachment V.
Environmental/Historic Guidance & Established Questions or visit the
website: http://www.fema.gov/ ehp/ slt.shun.
D. Engineering Feasibility
FEMA can supply technical assistance to Applicants and Sub-applicants
regarding the level of documentation and the types of information that FEMA
will need to adequately review feasibility of proposed mitigation projects. In
addition, FEMA can provide technical assistance to Applicants and Sub-
applicants regarding completeness and accuracy of project cost estimating for
engmeenng costs.
XIV. FEMA Review
FEMA will review all applications to ensure the following:
• Eligibility of the Applicants and Sub-applicants;
• Eligibility of proposed activities and costs;
• Eligibility and availability of non-Federal cost share;
• Consistency of mitigation projects with the FEMA-approved
mitigation plan;
• Engineering feasibility of mitigation projects, including complete
supporting documentation;
• Benefit-cost ratio of at least 1.0 for mitigation projects;
• Technical accuracy, complete supporting documentation, and
source credibility of the BCA for mitigation projects;
• Complete responses to the Environmental/Historic Preservation
Established Questions and supporting documentation for
mitigation projects and inclusion of appropriate treatment measures
in project cost; and,
• Complete responses to Supplemental Questions for National
Ranking and Evaluation, including the hazard risk assessment for
planning activities.
Elimination Criteria.
• Ineligible applicant
• Incomplete application
• Identified flood hazard
area, but not NFIP
participant
• Identified flood hazard
area, but NFIP
probation, suspension
or withdrawal
• Missing cost-share
funding
• Mitigation projects
without a Benefit-Cost
Analysis
• Benefit cost ratio less
than 1.0
• Activities requiring
conditional approvals.
Page 25
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
FEMA will notify Applicants of applications that do not satisfy the eligibility
requirements and the reason(s) for ineligibility.
A National Benefit-Cost Review Panel
Given the technical nature of the BCA and its importance in the PDM
National Ranking and Evaluation processes (see Section XV. National
Ranking and Evaluation), FEMA will convene a National Benefit-Cost Review
Panel of subject matter experts to conduct a detailed and comprehensive
review of the BCAs for all mitigation projects. Mitigation projects with
BCAs that do not include supporting documentation will not be
considered for PDM funding (see Section X, Benefit-Cost Analysis).
FEMA has developed a review methodology based on a series of key data
points related to FEMA's BCA software that have a large influence on the
outcome of the analysis (see Attachment IV. Data Points for Benefit-Cost
Analysis Review). The evaluation process will emphasize the data that have
the greatest impact on the benefit-cost ratio. Reviewers will evaluate the
reasonableness, credibility, and accuracy of all BCAs by reviewing each data
point of the BCA in three key areas:
• Technical accuracy;
• Supporting documentation; and
• Source credibility.
Technical Accuracy
FEMA has established a series of evaluation criteria for each combination of
hazard and analysis type (engineering data or frequency-damage). The points
of highest influence cliff er depending on the hazard being addressed and the
chosen methodology. The BCA review methodology associates higher weight
to data points of greater importance.
Supporting documentation
Every data point in a BCA should be clearly documented. Deviations from
standard procedures, guidance or techniques should be thoroughly explained
and documented. The BCA review methodology associates higher weight to
better documentation of data derivation methods and assumptions in the
project application. Projects not adequately documented will be less
competmve.
Source Credibility
The more technical the data and the more it influences the outcome of a BCA,
the more emphasis the BCA Review Panel will place on the credibility of its
source.
B. Environmental and Historic Review
Since this is a competitive program, not all applications received will
be selected for award. Therefore, Regional Environmental Officers
Page 26
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
should provide a consistent level of general advice, rather than trying
to resolve compliance or undertake consultation, until after the
National Ranking and Evaluation process when proposals are selected.
For selected mitigation projects that require any level of
environmental review or an environmental assessment, funds will
not be awarded and the project cannot be initiated until FEMA
has completed its review. Technical assistance will be available to
the Regions to consult with regulatory/ resource agencies and make
recommendations regarding compliance measures required to address
the environmentaVhistoric impacts of selected projects.
Although the final environmentaVhistoric review will occur after the National
Ranking and Evaluation process, much of the data collection and review
process will be accomplished by the Sub-applicant as they are developing their
application. Once a project is selected through the National Ranking and
Evaluation process, the Sub-applicant's environmental/historic preservation
information developed during the application development process will be
used toward meeting the official compliance requirements. FEMA will
complete the environmental and historic preservation review with the
assistance of both the Applicant and the Sub-applicant. FEMA will not
award the grant and the Sub-applicant may not initiate construction
until FEMA has completed its review. FEMA and the Applicant should
complete the Environmental/Historic Preseivation review within 9
months of selection or the project may not be funded.
C. Engineering Feasibility
FEMA will review the engineering feasibility of projects to determine whether
the information provided in the application demonstrates:
• the project is technically feasible;
• the project conforms with accepted engineering practices; and
• the estimated cost of the project is consistent with the defined
scope of work and accepted cost estimating principles.
XV. National Ranking and Evaluation
A National Ranking
FEMA will score all eligible activities on the basis of predetermined,
objective, quantitative factors to calculate a National Ranking Score.
Mitigation planning activities will be scored separately from mitigation
proJects.
Ranking factors for competitive mitigation planning activities and
the respective weighting of each in the Ranking are:
1) Sub-applicant's assessment of risks by hazard (44 percent);
2) The priority given to the sub-application by the Applicant
(35 percent);
3) Community mitigation factors such as Community Rating
System class, Cooperating Technical Partner, participation
National Ranking.
All eligible sub-
applications will be
ranked on the basis of
predetermined factors to
calculate a National
Ranking Score.
Mitigation projects and
mitigation planning
applications will be scored
separately.
Page 27
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
as a Firewise Community, and adoption and enforcement of
codes including the International Code Series and National
Fire Protection Association 5000 Code, as measured by the
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (12 percent);
4) Status of FEMA-approved local, Standard State/Tribal and
Enhanced State/Tribal mitigation plans (5 percent); and
5) Status of Sub-applicant as a small, impoverished community
(4 percent).
Ranking factors for mitigation projects and the respective weighting
of each in the Ranking are:
1) Benefit cost ratio by hazard based on Applicant's Benefit
Cost Analysis (51 percent);
2) The priority given to the sub-application by the Applicant
(22 percent);
3) Community mitigation factors such as Community Rating
System class, Cooperating Technical Partner, participation
as a Firewise Community, and adoption and enforcement of
codes including the International Code Series and National
Fire Protection Association 5000 Code, as measured by the
Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (10 percent);
4) Status of FEMA-approved local, Standard State/Tribal and
Enhanced State/Tribal mitigation plans (5 percent);
5) The percent of the population benefiting, which equals the
number of individuals directly benefiting divided by the
community population (4 percent);
6) The status of Sub-applicant as a small, impoverished
community (4 percent); and
7) Whether the project protects critical facilities [i.e.,
Hazardous Materials Facilities, Emergency Operation
Centers, Power Facilities, Water Facilities, Sewer and
wastewater treatment Facilities, Communications Facilities,
Emergency Medical Care Facilities, Fire Protection, and
Emergency Facilities (4 percent)].
All sub-applications will be ranked in descending order based on the National
Ranking Scores. The highest scored sub-applications, representing 150
percent of funds available nationally for the competitive PDM program, will
progress to the National Evaluation phase. FEMA may include the two
highest scoring sub-applications from each State and the two highest scoring
sub-applications from Tribal Applicants in the National Evaluation, if not
already included in the 150 percent, to ensure a geographic spread of the
applications considered. FEMA also may include sub-applications that are
primarily focused on the National Priority to address NFIP repetitive flood
loss properties among the project sub-applications that progress to the
National Evaluation.
Page 28
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
B. National Evaluation
National panels, chaired by FEMA and composed of FEMA
headquarters and regional staff, other Federal agency staff, and State
representatives, will convene to evaluate the sub-applications on the
basis of additional predetermined qualitative factors to determine a
National Evaluation Score. Mitigation planning and mitigation project
activities will be evaluated as separate categories. All sub-applications
will be considered equal at the beginning of the National Evaluation.
FEMA will ensure that panel evaluations are conducted consistently
and fairly and that there are no conflicts of interest.
Evaluation factors for competitive mitigation planning activities and the
respective weighting of each in the Evaluation are:
1) Feasibility of methodology and outcome (18 percent);
2) Implementation involves reasonable timeline and expectations (16
percent);
3) Sufficient staff and resources to implement (14 percent);
4) Consistency with the National priority to address NFIP repetitive
flood loss properties; Federal laws and Executive Orders to include
National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation
Act, dean Water Act, Floodplain Management, and Seismic Safety
of Federal Buildings; and Federal programs such as American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, SBA Mitigation Loan Program and EPA
Watershed Initiative (11 percent);
5) Community mitigation initiatives to include tax credits, waiver of
building permit fees, and building codes (10 percent);
6) Leverages State and local community involvement through
partnerships (9 percent);
7) Appropriate outreach activities that advance mitigation (7 percent);
8) Serve as a model for other communities (7 percent);
9) Innovation and creativity used as part of the best available options
(6 percent); and,
10) National Ranking score (2 percent).
Evaluation factors for mitigation projects and the respective weighting of
each in the Evaluation are:
1) Feasibility of project methodology and outcome (15 percent);
2) Implementation involves reasonable timeline and expectations (14
percent);
3) Sufficient staff and resources to implement (13 percent);
4) Consistency with the National priority to reduce NFIP repetitive
flood loss properties; Federal laws and Executive Orders to include
National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation
Act, dean Water Act, Floodplain Management, and Seismic Safety
of Federal Buildings; and Federal programs such as American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, SBA Mitigation Loan Program and EPA
Watershed Initiative ( 11 percent);
National Evaluation.
National panels, chaired by
FEMA and composed of
FEMA headquarters and
regional staff, other Federal
agency staff, and State
representatives, will convene
to evaluate the sub-
applications on the basis of
additional predetermined
qualitative factors to
determine a National
Evaluation Score.
Mitigation projects and
mitigation planning
applications will be
evaluated as separate
catee:ories.
Page 29
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
5) Community mitigation initiatives to include tax credits, waiver of
building permit fees, and building codes (9 percent);
6) Whether the project protects critical facilities (8 percent);
7) Leverages State and local community involvement through
partnerships (7 percent);
8) Serves as a model for other communities (6 percent);
9) Durable financial and social benefits offered (5 percent);
10) Appropriate outreach activities that advance mitigation (5 percent);
11) Innovation and creativity used as part of the best available options
(4 percent); and,
12) National Ranking Score (3 percent).
Each panelist will review multiple sub-applications. For each sub-application
reviewed, the panelist will provide a score for each evaluation factor, which
will generate a National Evaluation Score computed as the sum of the
weighted factor scores. Panelists will then meet in groups to discuss each sub-
application. A FEMA leader will be assigned to guide each panel. Panelists
will present their assigned sub-application to the group and then each will
provide a confidence rating for the sub-application using a 0 to 100 scale. A
Confidence Factor for each sub-application will be calculated as the average of
the panel's confidence ratings. The Confidence Factor for each sub-
application will be factored into the National Evaluation Score, and a list of
sub-applications will be created. In the event of a tie, the National Ranking
Score will be used to break a tie.
XVI. Selection and Award
The Approving Federal Official shall consider the National Evaluation Score, the
Confidence Factor, any comments and recommendations from the independent
panelists, the National priority, and other pertinent information to determine which
applications to select for award. After the sub-applications are selected, FEMA
Regional offices will work with Applicants whose sub-applications are selected for
award to implement the grant award.
FEMA has determined, in accordance with 44 CFR 10.8 (d)(2)(iii), that mitigation
planning activities are eligible for CAIBX, having no impact on the environment
and requiring no further environmental or historic preservation review, and will be
awrded upon selection. Certain project activities do not require a level of review
beyond a CA IBX, and may be awarded after the CA IBX eligibility is determined.
Other project activities usually require more extensive review, or even an
environmental assessment with alternatives addressed and/ or historic preservation
consultation. For selected mitigation projects that require any level of
envirorunental review or an envirorunental assessment, funds will not be
awarded and the project cannot be initiated until FEMA has completed its
review. If, after review of the responses to the EnvironmentaVHistoric
Preservation Established Questions and supporting documentation, and
consultations with regulatory/ resource agencies, FEMA determines that certain
treatment measures are required to address the environmentaVhistoric impacts of a
proposed project, FEMA will notify the Applicant. The Applicant or Sub-applicant
Selection and Award.
The Approving Federal
Official at Headquarters
shall consider the National
Evaluation Score, any
comments and
recommendations from the
independent panelists, and
other pertinent
information to determine
which sub-applications to
approve. After the sub-
applications are selected,
FEMA Regional offices
will work with Applicants
whose sub-applications are
selected for award.
Page 30
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
may determine whether or not to accept the grant award based on the estimated
additional cost of the treatment measures.
The amount of the Federal share will not be increased to cover any
additional costs. Therefore, it is essential that Applicants and Sub-applicants
include costs associated with any anticipated environmental/historic preservation
alternatives or treatment measures identified through the development of the
environmental/historic preservation documentation in the project budget at the
time of application submission.
If an Applicant or Sub-applicant does not accept an award, then FEMA may use
the funds to award additional applications or return them to the National Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Fund for use in the next grant cycle.
XVII. Reconsideration
At its discretion, FEMA may review a decision where there is an indication of
material, technical, or procedural error that influenced FEMA's decision. There
will be no reconsideration regarding the amount of management costs; however,
FEMA may amend an Applicant's management cos ts if additional applications are
later selected for award. As grants are awarded on a competitive basis, FEMA will
not entertain requests for reconsideration based upon the merits of an original
application. Similarly, FEMA will not consider new information provided after the
application period has closed. In the case of new information, FEMA encourages
Applicants to incorporate this information into their applications for future grant
cycles.
Requests for reconsideration based upon technical or procedural error should be
directed to the Regional Director within 60 days of the date of the notice of
FEMA's decision. The Regional Director will analyze the reconsideration request
and make a recommendation to the Director of the Mitigation Division at
Headquarters or his designee. A small percentage of funds will be set aside for
reconsideration requests. If funds are available after reconsideration requests are
analyzed, then the funds may be used to award additional grants or returned to the
National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund for use in the next grant cycle.
XVIII. Scope of Work
FEMA will not consider changes to the Scope of Work between the time the
application period has closed and the selection and award process is completed.
Requests for changes to the Scope of Work for selected and approved PDM
activities after award are permissible as long as they do not change the nature of the
project. Requests must be supported by adequate justification from the Applicant
in order to be processed. The justification is a wrinen explanation of the reason or
reasons for the change; and outline of remaining funds available to support the
change; and a description of the work necessary to complete the project. There is
no guarantee that Scope of Work changes will be approved. No Scope of Work
changes will be approved for cost ovenuns.
Reconsideration.
At its discretion, FEMA
may review a decision
where there is an indication
of a material technical or
procedural error that
influenced the decision.
Reconsideration occurs
only after FEMA has
rendered final decisions.
Requests for
reconsideration based upon
material, technical, or
procedural error should be
directed to the Regional
Director within 60 days of
receiving notice of FEMA's
decision.
Page 31
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
For acquisition projects, changes to the properties in an approved mitigation
project will be considered but will not be approved automatically. The
Applicant must have identified the alternate properties in the project
application, including a BCA for each property. The alternate properties
should not be included in the cost estimate or the over.ill project BCA.
Eligible properties may be substituted as long as the substitution does not
change the over.ill nature of the project or increase the amount of the
Federal share.
XIX. Performance Period
The performance period is the period of time specified in the Agreement Articles
during which the grant recipient is expected to perform the activities and to incur
and expend funds approved for PDM activities. The performance period for the
grant shall be equal to the longest performance period of the sub-grants awarded to
the Grantee.
Mitigation planning grant performance periods are limited to two years. A draft
plan must be submitted for review by FEMA within 18 months, and a final plan
must be submitted to FEMA within two years of award.
Mitigation project grant performance periods are limited to three years. Designs
must be completed and construction contracts must be awarded within 12 months.
Mitigation projects must be completed within three years of award.
The grant recipient has up to 90 days following the expiration of the performance
period to liquidate valid expenditures incurred during the performance period.
Unexpended funds, or cost underruns, remaining after the performance period
expiration date must be reported to FEMA for de-obligation. Cost underruns from
one Sub-grantee cannot be used to meet another Sub-grantee's cost overrun.
XX. Extensions
Requests for time extensions to the performance period will be considered but will
not be approved automatically. Requests for a period of performance extension
must be submitted in writing to the Regional Director and must be supported by
adequate justification in order to be processed. This justification is a written
explanation of the reason or reasons for an extension to the performance period
and must demonstrate that work is in progress and that the work can be completed
within the extended period of performance. The justification must address the
following areas to enable the review of extension requests:
1) Submission Date: The request must be submitted at least 60 days
prior to the expiration date of the performance period.
2) Reason for Delay: Identify the status of the activity and give a
brief description for the delay (e.g., weather conditions).
3) Budget: Identify the remaining funds, both FEMA share and cost
share, available for the extended period and outline how the funds
will be used. Identify source of additional funding if remaining
FEMA funds and cost share will not support the extension request.
Page 32
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
4) Plan for Completion: Identify the objectives necessary to
complete the activity, completion date for each objective, and list
the position/ person responsible for oversight of completion of the
activity.
5) Completion Date: Identify the projected completion date for the
activity.
6) No change of scope: Provide a certification that the activity will
be completed within the extended period without any modification
to the activity approved by FEMA.
In reference to the Financial and Acquisition Management Division's Extension
Policy, the Regional office may extend the performance period by up to one year.
If a second extension becomes necessary, an additional formal written request must
be submitted to the Regional Director. As with the first request, the second
extension request must be made no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of the
period of performance and must include a justification for the extension. The
Regional office will make a recommendation and submit the second request to the
Senior Procurement Executive at Headquarters, who will process the request in
coordination with the Headquarters Mitigation Division. The total period of
performance should not exceed 5 years.
Should any sub-grant performance period be extended, the grant recipient
performance period will need to be extended; however, the extension should be
conditioned so that all completed sub-grants are closed out within their individual
performance periods.
XXI. Reporting Requirements
The following reports are required from Recipients that are awarded PDM
competltlve grants:
A Federal Cash Transaction Reports
If the Recipient uses the HHS Payment Management System-SMAR1LINK,
the Recipient shall submit a copy of the PMS 272 Cash Transaction Report
that is submitted to the Federal Health and Human Services (HHS) to FEMA
as well.
B. Financial Status Reports
The Recipient shall submit Financial Status Reports, SF269 or FF 20-10 to the
FEMA regional office within 30 days from the end of the first federal quarter
following the initial grant award. The Regional Director may waive this initial
report. The Recipient shall submit quarterly financial status reports thereafter
until the grant ends. Reports are due on January 30, April 30, July 30, and
October30.
C. Performance Reports
1) The Recipient shall submit performance/ progress reports for each
sub-grant award approved under PDM to the FEMA Regional Office
within 30 days from the end of the first Federal quarter following the
Page 33
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
initial grant award. The Regional Director may waive the initial
report. The Recipient shall submit quarterly performance/ progress
status reports thereafter until the grant ends. Reports are due on
January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30.
2) Progress reports must include activity name or other identification;
completion status, including reason why an activity may not be
progressing; expenditure; and payment-to-date information.
D. Final Reports
The Recipient shall submit a Final Financial Status Report and Performance
Report within 90 days from Grant Award Performance Period expiration date,
per 44CFR13.50.
The Regional Director may suspend drawdowns from the HHS/Payment
Management System-SMARTLINK if quarterly reports are not submitted
on time.
XX.II. Other Information
A The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number is 83.557.
B. C.Ontact information for the FEMA Regional Offices is provided on the
FEMA website: http:/Iwww.fema.gov I regions/ and also is listed here for
your information.
FEMA Region I -Serving Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode
Island, C.Onnecticut, and Massachusetts: J.W. McC.Ormack POCH
Building, Boston, MA 02109. (617)223-9540.
FEMARegion II -Serving New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands: 26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1307, New York, NY 10278-
0001. (212) 680-3600.
FEMA Region III -Serving the District of C.Olumbia, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia: 1 Independence
Mall, 6th Floor, 615 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404. (215)
931-5608.
FEMA Region IV-Serving Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee: 3003
Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, GA 30341. (770) 220-5200.
FEMA Region V -Serving Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and WISconsin: 536 S. OarkStreet, 61h Floor, Chicago, IL 60605. (312)
408-5500.
Page 34
Attachment I: Grant Guidance
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
FEMA Region VI -Serving Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas: FRC 800 North Loop 288, Denton, TX 76209-
3698. (940) 898-5399.
FEMA Region VII -Serving Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska:
2323 Grand Avenue, Suite 900, Kansas City, MO 64108-2670. (816) 283-
7061.
FEMA Region VIII -Serving C.olorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming: Denver Federal Center, Building 710, Box
25267, Denver, CO 80225-0267. (303) 235-4800.
FEMA Region IX -Serving Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the
Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, and the
C.ommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: 1111 Broadway, Suite
1200, Oakland, CA 94607-4052. (510) 627-7100.
FEMA Region X -Serving Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington:
Federal Regional Center, 130 228rh Street, SW, Bothell, WA 98021. (425)
487-4600.
C. The Supplemental Questions for the National Ranking and Evaluation
process for the PDM competitive grant are provided in Attachment II.
D. A Model Deed Restriction is provided in Attachment III.
E. Guidelines for Benefit-C.ost Analysis of PDM Application is provided in
Attachment IV.
F. EnvironmentaVHistoric Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
are provided in Attachment V.
G. Draft Agreement Articles are provided in Attachment VI.
Page 35
Page 1of3
Judy Downs -Fwd: RE: Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
From: Judy Downs
Subject: Fwd: RE: Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
>>> "Hahn IV, William" <William.HahnlV@hdrinc.com> 07/14/03 11:33AM >>>
Judy,
What you are referring to is correct for the Mitigation Planning portion of the program, which was advertised in
March. However, Mitigation Projects also qualify under the program, and this is what was specified in the July
7th Federal Register advertisement. That pool of (Federal) money is about $132 Million (after rescission
mandated by federal law), and it will be granted on a competitive basis. I have attached a copy of the Word
document detailing this part of the program; please pay special attention to pages 8 -13. Hope this will clarify
some questions you may have.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Downs [mailto:Jdowns@cstx.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 11:01 AM
To: Hahn IV, William
Cc: Mark Smith
Subject: RE: Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
Will,
The City is going to submit the letter to get our E-grant ID & password. When I read the notice
from the federal register, it sounds as though there is only $248,375 available for the entire state of
Texas. Am I reading that right? We also may not want to apply for this round of funding since the
COG intends to submit for a Mitigation Plan.
Judy
>>>"Hahn IV, William" <William.HahnIV@hdrinc.com> 07/14/03 09:34AM >>>
Good morning Judy. Glad that the Wolf Pen Creek package made it there okay.
Just an update to the e-mail I sent last Thursday regarding the FEMA grant money. I talked to the
PDMc administrator for Texas Thursday afternoon, and she told me that Texas does NOT have a
deadline for submitting a Letter of Intent, and the program will be administered as spelled out in the
June 23rd letter that I spoke of earlier, which you may find on the OEM's website. She did say,
however, that it would be a good idea to get your request for a E-Grant ID and password in as soon
as possible, as this is a national program and Texas cities will be competing with the likes of LA, NY
City, etc. Also, the DEM has set an internal deadline of August 22nd for submitting grant
applications, as they will come back to them, and this will allow them time to look them over and
help grant applicants with any problems that they might have in order to give them a better shot at
obtaining a grant. The E-Grant portal for the program shuts down on October 6th, and noone will be
able to apply or change their application after that date, period .
Hope this has clarified the program to some extent. If you have any questions or think that you
might need some help with this, please feel free to contact Rob Armstrong or myself.
Regards,
about: blank 7/14/2003
Will
William Hahn, E.l.T.
HDR -ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
17111 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75248-1229
Direct: (972) 960-4429
FAX: 972-960-4471
about: blank
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Downs [mailto:Jdowns@cstx.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:44 PM
To: Hahn IV, William
Subject: Re: Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
The package arrived, I'll follow up on the FEMA mitigation funds.
Thanks -Judy
Judith Downs
Greenways Program Manager
City of College Station
(979) 764-3844
>>>"Hahn IV, William" <William.HahnIV@hdrinc.com> 07/10/03 11:54AM >>>
Judy,
Rob is out of town today, and he wanted me to touch base with you to make sure that you received the two (2)
copies of the Wolf Pen Creek Study today from FedEX. Please let us know if you have any questions or
comments.
On another note, Rob wanted me to let you know that FEMA just released an announcement on Monday, July 7th,
regarding the availability of Pre-Disaster Mitigation competitive (PDMc) grants. An overview of the national
program and the Federal Register announcement are attached below. Also, I have included a link to the website
for the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) of the TX Department of Public Safety, which oversees this
plan for the State of Texas; please pay special attention to the link "Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C)
Mitigation Grants" on their website for a letter explaining the application process for this new grant opportunity.
While applicants have 90 days from the date of the Federal Register publication to submit their applications, some
states are requiring a short "Letter of Intent" be sent in by the potential applicant to the coordinating state agency
by Monday, July 14th, 2003. We are awaiting response from the DEM as to whether or not they will require this,
but as of now their letter of June 23rd, 2003 states that applicants send in information to obtain a password in
order to be allowed access to the federal E-Grants system (see letter on the DEM website). Potential applicants
MUST sign up now for this program, as they will not be allowed to receive a grant application at a later date.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be of service, and please let us know how we may help you in the future.
Best regards,
Will
William Hahn, E.I.T.
HOR -ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
17111 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75248-1229
Direct: (972) 960-4429
FAX: 972-960-4471
DEM Website link:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/dem/odm-c/
Page 2of3
7114/2003
Federal Program Information:
<<PDM Two-Page Handout 2003-0417.doc>> <<pdmpublicationdetail.htm>>
College Station. Embracing the past, Exploring the future.
City of College Station email addresses are changing!
Please note the extension "@ci.college-station.tx.us"
has been changed to "@cstx.gov".
Although the original address will continue to work,
please update your files to contain the new, shorter address.
College Station. Embracing the past, Exploring the future.
City of College Station email addresses are changing!
Please note the extension "@ci.college-station.tx.us"
has been changed to "@cstx.gov".
Although the original address will continue to work,
please update your files to contain the new, shorter address.
about: blank
Page 3of3
711412003
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
RJCKPERRY
Governor Mallnq Addms:
·THOMAS A. DAVIS, Jr
Director
PO Bax4'087
Austin. Texas 78773-0220
June 23, 2003
To: Emergency Management Colleagues
Subject Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive {PDM-C) Mitigation Grant Program
JACK COLLEY
Coordinator
The following Is a brief explanation of the upcoming PDM-C Grant Program and Its appHcatlon
process: .
1. PDM-C Is an annual program that Is funded 75% federal, 25% local match. Applicants
Will be competing with citl.es and co\Jntles all aaoss the United States. Grants may be
awarded for projects that are both cost effective, and that substantially reduce the costs
ln life and property during natural and human-caused disasters. FEMA'S emphasis for
FY03 ts the mitigation of repetitive flOOd loss structures. State ·priorities for this grant
cycie are development of federally required Mitigation Action Plans, mitigation of flood
prone properties, and construction of certified stonn shelters.
2. State agencies, local governments, .and certain organizations created by the Texas
Legislature are ellglble to apply for grants. Appllcations for PDM-C are to Pe submitted In
electronic format through the federal E-Gra.nts system. This system Is web based and
requires access to the lntemel·
3. . In order to gain access to the E-Grants site to apply for PDM-C grants, a jurisdiction will
need a State-provided password. To request a password, send a letter on jurisdiction
letterhead, with ortglnal signature from the chief elected official, to the address nsted
below.
Texas Dept of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management
Hazard Mitigation Section, A lTN: Sherrie Mlckan
P.O. Box 4087
Austin, Texas 78773-0226
4. The chief elected official will need to designate who they want to be able to access the
system on their behalf, and what level of access they want to grant JurtsdlctJons will
nonnaDy anow three levels of access:. those that will be creating and editing the
application; those that only need to view and print the application; and those that have
authority to commit funds and sign and submit the application to the State.
Continued ....
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) MitlgaUon Grant Program
June 23, 2003
Page2
5. The letter requesting a password should lndude the following lnfonnaUon for each
person granted access: First Name, last Name, postuon, and level of access granted
(create/edit, view/print, or sign/submit). In addition, please provide the foUOwlng:
• Name of primary project officer (for daUy management of your project).
• Project offteer work phone, taX. malling address, and e-mail (required).
6. The password and additional guidance will be e-mailed to your designated primary
project officer.
7. Additional Information concerning this grant program Is available on the DEM website
http://txdps.state.tx.us/dem/pdm-c
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact my staff at 512-424-2423.
:.
1j j .;l
j Judy Downs -Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Judy,
"Hahn IV, William" <William.HahnlV@hdrinc.com>
<jdowns@ci. college-station . tx. us>
7/10/03 11 :55AM
Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
Rob is out of town today, and he wanted me to touch base with you to make sure that you received the
two (2) copies of the Wolf Pen Creek Study today from FedEX. Please let us know if you have any
questions or comments.
On another note, Rob wanted me to let you know that FEMA just released an announcement on Monday,
July 7th , regarding the availability of Pre-Disaster Mitigation competitive (PDMc) grants. An overview of
the national program and the Federal Register announcement are attached below. Also, I have included a
link to the website for the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) of the TX Department of Public
Safety, which oversees this plan for the State of Texas; please pay special attention to the link
"Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) Mitigation Grants" on their website for a letter explaining the
application process for this new grant opportunity. While applicants have 90 days from the date of the
Federal Register publication to submit their applications, some states are requiring a short "Letter of
Intent" be sent in by the potential applicant to the coordinating state agency by Monday, July 14th, 2003.
We are awaiting response from the DEM as to whether or not they will require this, but as of now their
letter of June 23rd, 2003 states that applicants send in information to obtain a password in order to be
allowed access to the federal E-Grants system (see letter on the DEM website). Potential applicants
MUST sign up now for this program, as they will not be allowed to receive a grant application at a later
date.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be of service, and please let us know how we may help you in the
future.
Best regards,
Will
William Hahn, E.l.T.
HOR -ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
17111 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75248-1 229
Direct: (972) 960-4429
FAX: 972-960-4471
DEM Website link:
http://www. txdps.state. tx. us/dem/pdm-c/
Federal Program Information:
«PDM Two-Page Handout 2003-0417.doc» «pdmpublicationdetail. htm»
CC: <bmccully@ci.college-station.tx.us>
Page 1 j
I Judy Downs -Re: Fwd: Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Lance Simms
Brett McCully; Judy Downs
7/10/03 4:14PM
Re: Fwd: Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
We have adopted the 2000 edition of the International Building, Plumbing , Residential, Energy, Fire, Fuel
Gas, Mechanical, and Property Maintenance Code.
We also received a Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classification of 4 on our last survey (July 2002).
I hope this info helps.
Lance Simms
Building Official
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77840
Phone: (979) 764-37 41
Fax: (979) 764-3814
>»Judy Downs 07/10/03 03:21 PM»>
Is there an easier way to get it? The ranking also includes:
Community mitigation factors such as Community Rating System class, Cooperating Technical Partner,
participation as a Firewise Community, and adoption of codes to include Building Code Effectiveness
Grading Schedule, International Code Series and National Fire Protection Association 5000 Code.
Maybe Lance can provide the code information.
»>Brett Mccully 07/10/03 03:17PM »>
Somewhere up here we have some data on that, but it will take some digging.
»>Judy Downs 07/10/03 02:54PM >»
Do you have the data on repetitive flood loss statistics for the Meridian apartments in your office?
»>"Hahn IV, William" 07/10/03 11 :54AM »>
Judy,
Rob is out of town today, and he wanted me to touch base with you to make sure that you received the
two (2) copies of the Wolf Pen Creek Study today from FedEX. Please let us know if you have any
questions or comments.
On another note, Rob wanted me to let you know that FEMA just released an announcement on Monday,
July 7th, regarding the availability of Pre-Disaster Mitigation competitive (PDMc) grants. An overview of the
national program and the Federal Register announcement are attached below. Also, I have included a link
to the website for the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) of the TX Department of Public
Safety, which oversees this plan for the State of Texas; please pay special attention to the link
"Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) Mitigation Grants" on their website for a letter explaining the
application process for this new grant opportunity. While applicants have 90 days from the date of the
Federal Register publication to submit their applications, some states are requiring a short "Letter of
Intent" be sent in by the potential applicant to the coordinating state agency by Monday, July 14th, 2003.
We are awaiting response from the DEM as to whether or not they will require this, but as of now their
Page 1 I
I Judy Downs -Re: Fwd: Wolf Pen Creek and FEMA Disaster Mitigation Grants
letter of June 23rd , 2003 states that applicants send in information to obtain a password in order to be
allowed access to the federal E-Grants system (see letter on the DEM website). Potential applicants
MUST sign up now for this program, as they will not be allowed to receive a grant application at a later
date.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be of service, and please let us know how we may help you in the
future.
Best regards,
Will
William Hahn, E.l.T.
HOR -ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
17111 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75248-1229
Direct: (972) 960-4429
FAX: 972-960-4471
DEM Website link:
http://www. b<dps.state. b<. us/dem/pdm-c/
Federal Program Information:
<> <>
Page 2 j
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PRE-DISASTER
MITIGATION COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The Fiscal Year 2003 budget provides $150 million underthe National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund to
initiate a competitive grant program for pre-disaster mitigation activities. The intent of this program is to
provide a consistent source of funding to State, Tribal, and local governments for pre-disaster mitigation
planning and projects primarily addressing natural hazards. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall
risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster
declarations. This document outlines the design of the competitive Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program.
USES OF FUNDS KEY POINTS
Funds: FEMA v.ras directed to provide $250K planning grants to
States and five other recognized entities for a total allocation of
$13.75M The Disaster Resistant University program will receive
$3.6M The remaining funds will be available for competitive pre-
disaster mitigation grants, technical assistance, and program
support for PDM
Categories of Funds for Competitive Grants:
• Mitigation projects: $3M cap Federal share per project
• Mitigation planning
Cost-share: 75% Federal cost-share; small, impoverished
communities may have up to 90% Federal cost-share.
Management costs are allowable for Applicants and Sub-
Applicants.
Up to 10% of the funds requested in the mitigation planning or
project sub-applications may be used for information
dissemination activities regarding cost-effective mitigation
technologies. These activities may include marketing, outreach,
training and education, but only if related to the proposed
mitigation planning or project activity.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Applicant Eligibility: Only the state emergency
management agencies or a similar office (i.e. the office
that has emergency management responsibilitY} of the
State, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, as well as Federally recognized Indian Tribal
governments are eligible to apply to FEMA for assistance
as Applicants under this program.
Sub-applicant Eligibility: Other State-level agencies;
Federally recognized Indian Tribal governments; and local
governments to include State recognized Indian Tribes, authorized
tribal organizations, and Alaska Native villages are eligible to apply
to the Applicant for assistance. Private non-profit organizations
are not eligible Sub-applicants; however, they may request a local
government to submit an application for their proposed activity
on their behalf.
National Priorities: For FY 2003, the
National priority is funding mitigation
projects that address repetitive flood loss
properues.
Ineligible Activities (partial list):
• Major flood control projects;
• Engineering designs not integral to a proposed
project;
• Feasibility studies not integral to a proposed
project;
• Flood studies or mapping; and,
• Response and communication equipment.
No 5% Initiative: The 5% Initiative, available as
part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) to fund discretionary mitigation activities
that may be difficult to evaluate against traditional
cost-effectiveness criteria, is not a category of
assistance under the PDM program.
Application Period: States and Federally
recognized Indian Tribes must submit a grant
application to the appropriate FEMA Regional Office
within 90 days after publication of the Notice of
Funds Availability.
NFIP Participation: All Tribal Applicants and
Sub-applicants must be participating in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if they have been
identified through the NFIP as having a Special
Flood Hazard Area (a Flood Hazard Boundary Map
(FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has
been issued). In addition, the community must not
be on probation, suspended or withdra"W11 from the
NFIP.
Briefing Memorandum PDM 4-1-03 I Page 1
ELIMINATION CRITERIA KEY POINTS
Elimination Criteria:
• Ineligible applicant
• Incomplete application
• Identified flood hazard area, but not NFIP participant
• Identified flood hazard area, but NFIP probation, suspended
or, withdrawn
• Missing cost-share funding
• Mitigation projects without a Benefit-Cost Analysis
• Benefit cost ratio less than 1.0
• Activities requiring conditional approvals
EVALUATION AND AWARD PROCESS
National Ranking: All eligible sub-applications will
be ranked on the basis of predetermined factors to
calculate a National Ranking Score. Mitigation projects
and mitigation planning applications will compete as
separate categories. Factors that will be considered in
the score in order of importance are:
• Benefit-Cost Analysis (projects only};
• Assessment of risks by hazard (planning only};
• State/Tribal Ranking;
• Community Mitigation Factors;
• FEMA-Approved Mitigation Plan;
• Percent of the Population Benefiting (projects only};
• Small, Impoverished Community; and,
• G-itical Facility (projects only}.
Sub-applications will be ranked in descending order based on the
National Ranking Scores, and sub-applications representing 150%
of available funds will progress to the National Evaluation.
National Evaluation: National panels, chaired by
FEMA and composed of FEMA headquarters and
regional staff, other Federal agency staff, and State
representatives, will convene to evaluate the sub-
applications on the basis of additional predetermined
qualitative factors to determine a National Evaluation
Score. Mitigation projects and mitigation planning
applications will compete as separate categories.
Evaluation factors include (but are not limited to):
feasibility of project methodology, likelihood of projecr
su~c~s~, applicant capability, consistency with National
pnonnes, community mitigation incentives, protection
of critical facilities, and the National Ranking Score.
Selection/Award: The Approving Federal Official at
Headquarters shall consider the National Evaluation Score, any
comments and recommendations from the independent
reviewers, and other peninent information to determine which
sub-applications to approve. After the sub-applications are
selected, FEMA Regional offices will work with Applicants
whose sub-applications are selected for av:ard.
Benefit-Cost Analysis:
• Applicants will have to complete their own
Benefit Cost Analyses.
• A Benefit Cost Analysis will be required for
substantially damaged structures.
• A Benefit Cost Analysis is not required for
planning activities.
National Ranking: The two highest scoring sub-
applications from each State and the two highest
scoring sub-application from Tribal Applicants will
be included in the ational Evaluation' if not already
included in the 150%, to ensure a geographic spread
of the applications considered. FEMA also may
include sub-applications that are primarily focused on
the National Priority to address NFIP repetitive
flood loss properties among the sub-applications that
progress to the National Evaluation.
Environmental/Historic
Preservation Review: Once a project
is selected through the National Ranking
and Evaluation process, the Regional
Offices will be responsible for
environmental/historical preservation
reviews. Funds will not be av:arded and the
project cannot be initiated until FEMA has
completed its review.
Reconsideration : At its discretion, FEMA may
review a decision where there is an indication of a
material technical or procedural error that influenced
our decision. Reconsideration occurs only after
FEMA has rendered final decision. Requests for
reconsideration based upon technical or procedural
error should be directed to the Regional Director
within 60 days of receiving notice of our decision.
The Regional Director will analyze the
reconsideration request and make a recommendation
to the Director of the Mitigation Division at
Headquarters or his designee.
Briefing Memorandum PDM 4-1-03 I Page 2
[Federal Register : July 7 , 2003 (Volume 68 , Number 129))
[Notices)
[Page 40284 -40289)
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais .access .gpo .gov)
[DOCID :fr07jy03-101)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
AGENCY : Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security .
ACTION: Notice of availability of Pre-Disaster Mitigation competitive
grants .
SUMMARY : The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) gives notice of
the availability of Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) competitive grants
for fiscal year (FY) 2003 . FEMA will provide PDM funds to assist States
and communities to impl ement a sustained pre-disaster natural hazard
mi tigation pr ogram to reduce overall risk to the population and
structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual
disaster declarations . For FY 2003 , these funds will be awarded on a
competitive basis with a National priority on funding mitigation
projects that address National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
repetitive flood loss properties.
DATES : States and Federally recognized Indian Tribal governments
complete grant applications must be received electronically or on paper
by the appropriate FEMA Regional Office on or before midnight , Eastern
Ti me , October 6 , 2003 . If the non-federal cost share requirement cannot
be met by the applicati on deadline due to pending State and/or local
legislative approval or fiscal year timelines , the Applicant still must
submit the application by October 6 , 2003 , including a notation in the
Budget Narrative and a letter to the FEMA Regional Director providing
an explanation and stating that the cost share will be available by
November 4 , 2003 . The Applicant must follow-up with a written
certification to the FEMA Regional Director by November 4, 2003 to
verify that non-federal cost share funding is approved and available
for immediate use if the application is selected by FEMA .
ADDRESSES : FEMA Regional Offices :
FEMA Region I --Serving Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and Massachusetts : J .W. McCormack POCH Building, Boston,
MA 02109 .
FEMA Region II--Serving New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S . Virgin Islands : 26 Federal Plaza, Rm . 1307, New York, NY 10278-
0001 .
FEMA Region III--Serving the District of Columbia, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia , and West Virginia : 1 Independence
Mall, 6th Floor, 615 Chestnut Street , Philadelphia, PA 1910 6-4404 .
FEMA Region IV--Serving Alabama , Florida, Ge orgia , Kentucky,
Mississippi , North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee : 3003
Page 1 of 12
file://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings~downs. COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7 I I 0/2003
Chamblee Tucker Road, Atlanta, GA 30341 .
FEMA Region V--Serving Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio , and Wisconsin : 536 S . Clark Street, 6th Floor, Chicago, IL 60605 .
FEMA Region VI --Serving Arkansas , Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Texas : FRC 800 North Loop 288 , Denton, TX 76209-3698 .
FEMA Region VII--Serving Iowa, Kansas , Missouri, and Nebraska : 2323
Grand Avenue, Suite 900 , Kansas City, MO 64108-2670 .
FEMA Region VIII--Serving Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming : Denver Federal Center, Building 710, Box
25267 , Denver, CO 80225-0267 .
FEMA Region IX--Serving Arizona, California, Hawaii , Nevada, the
Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands : 1111 Broadway, Suite
1200, Oakland, CA 94607-4052.
FEMA Region X--Serving Alaska , Idaho, Oregon, and Washington :
Federal Regional Center, 130 228th Street, SW ., Bothell, WA 98021-979 .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Karen Magnino, Program Planning
Branch, Mitigation Division, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW ., Room 444 ,
Washington, DC 20472 , (202) 646-3807 or e-mail : Karen .Magnino@dhs .gov .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :
Appropriations
$150 million was made available for the PDM grant program under
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Public Law (Pub . L.) 108-
7 . In general , grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis and
without reference to State allocations , quotas , or ot her formul a-based
allocation of funds . Funds should be used primarily to fund mi tigation
activities t hat address natural hazards , but multi-hazard projects and
plans may also address hazards caused by non-natural forces.
From the $150 million FY 2003 appropriation for the PDM program,
$975,000 was rescinded by a general provision in the law that directs
every program, project , and activity be reduced by 0 .65 percent . FEMA
made available $250 ,000 ($248 ,375 after rescission) to each of the
fifty States, the District of Columbia , Puerto Rico , the Virgin
Islands , Guam , and American Samoa for state and local hazard mitigation
planning . A Notice of Funds Availability for the PDM planning grants
was published on March 3, 2003 . $3 .6 million of PDM funds will be
available as Disaster Resistant University (DRU) grants, through
separate notice , to State, local and Tribal governments for pre-
disaster mitigation activities that benefit universities. Approximately
$131.5 million is available for PDM competitive grants, technical
assistance and program support .
Authorities
The PDM program was authorized by section 203 of the Robert T .
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act),
42 U.S.C . 5133, as amended by section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 (OMA), Pub . L . 106-390, 114 Stat. 1552, to assist States
and communities to implement a sustained pre-disaster natural hazard
mitigation program to reduce overall risk to the population and
structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual
disaster declarations . The PDM program provides a significant
opportunity to raise risk awareness and to reduce the Nation 's disaster
losses through pre-disaster mitigation planning , and the implementation
of planned, pre-identified, cost effective mitigation measures that are
designed to reduce injuries, loss of life , and damage and destruction
of property from all hazards, including damage to critical facilities .
Page 2 of12
file ://C:\Documents%2 0and%20Settings\j downs.COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\pdrr ... 7/10/2 003
44 CFR Part 201, Hazard Mitigation Planning, establishes criteria
for State and local hazard mitigation planning, pursuant to section 322
of the Stafford Act, as amended by section 104 of the OMA . After
November 1, 2003, FEMA-approved local mitigation plans will be required
as a condition o f receiving
[[Page 40285))
PDM grants for local mitigation project grants . FEMA-approved local
mit i gation pl ans are not required for project grants awarded with FY
2003 PDM funds . FEMA is in the process of clar ifying language to
reflect that local mitigation plans are not required for project grants
awarded with FY 2003 PDM funds competed as of the date of this Notice .
After November 1 , 2004 , a FEMA-approved Standard State mitigation plan
will also be required as a condition of receiving PDM project grants
for State and local mitigation activities. The Standard State
Mitigation Pl an also will be required for non-emergency assistance
provided under the Stafford Act , including Public Assistance funds for
restoration of damaged facilities and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
funding . Therefore , the development of State and local multi-hazard
mitigation plans is key to maintaining eligibility for future FEMA
funding.
Applicant Eligibility
Only the state emergency management agencies or a similar office
(i .e ., the office that has emergency management responsibility) of the
State, the District of Columbia, the U.S . Virgin Islands , the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa , and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as Federally recognized Indian
Tribal governments are eligible to apply to FEMA for assistance as
Applicants under this program.
In keeping with the intent of FEMA's overall policy, ''Government-
to-Government Relations with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal
Governments,'' published at 64 FR 2095, January 12 , 1999, Federally
recognized Indian Tribal governments may choose to apply for PDM grants
either through the State as a Sub-applicant or directly to FEMA as an
Applicant . (This choice is independent of a designation under other
FEMA grants and programs ,) Some State regulations prohibit the State
from acting as an Applicant for an Indian Tribe . In such cases, or if
the Tribe chooses, the Tribal government may act as its own Applicant .
However, when legally permitted, Indian Tribal governments are
encouraged to continue existing relationships with the State as the
Applicant .
Sub-applicant Eligibility
Other state agencies , Federally recognized Indian Tribal
governments , and local governments , to include state recognized Indian
Tribes , authorized tribal organizations , and Alaska Native villages are
eligible to apply to the Applicant as Sub-applicants. Private non-
profit organizations are not eligible to apply as Sub-applicants ;
however, they may request a local government to submit an application
for their proposed activity on their behalf.
All Applicants and Sub-applicants must be participating in the NFIP
if they have been identified through the NFIP as having a Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA) (a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has been issued). In addition, the community
must not be on probation, suspended or withdrawn from the NFIP .
Page 3of 12
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\jdowns. COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7 /10/2003
Grant Application Process
Potential Sub-applicants should consult the official designated
point of contact in their State/Tribe for more information pertaining
to their application process .
FEMA's e l ectronic grants (e-Grants) system should be used by
Applicants and Sub-applicants whenever possible . FEMA has devel oped the
e -Grants system to meet the intent of the eGovernment initiative,
authorized by Pub . L . 106-107, passed on November 20, 1999 . This
initiative requires that all government agencies both streamline grant
application processes and provide for the means to electronically
create, revi ew , and submit a grant application via t he Internet . Use of
the e -Grants system will greatly assist FEMA in rapidly reviewing and
evaluating the applications for the PDM program . FEMA's e -Grants system
incorporates all of the elements noted below for the PDM application in
a user-friendly format for both Applicant and Sub-applicant use . The
e lectronic process may substitute for the paper-based process in that
Sub-applicants ' applications are electronically transmitted to the
Applicant for review a nd action. It will be the Appli cant 's
responsibility to determine which sub-applications will be included in
their final application to FEMA. The Applicant also must prioritize the
sub-applications included in its application to FEMA. FEMA will use the
information transmitted through the e -Grants system to evaluate
applications and make award decisions, monitor ongoing performance and
manage the flow of federal funds , and to closeout the grant award when
all work is completed.
If an Applicant does not use the e -Grants system, the Applicant may
submit a paper applicati on , which can be obtained from the FEMA
Regional Office . The grant apP,lication should include :
or
20 ;
[sbull] Application for Federal Assistance , Standard Form 424 ;
[sbull] Budget Information--Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-15 ;
[sbull] Budget Information--Non-Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-
[sbull] Budget Narrative explaining cost items that have been
b udgeted;
[sbull] Summary Sheet for Assurances and Certification, FEMA Form
20-16 ;
[sbull] Assurances--Non-Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-16A; or,
[sbull] Assurances--Construction Program, FEMA Form 20-16B;
[sbull] Certification Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension an~
Other Responsible Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements , FEMA
Form 20-16C;
[sbull] Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, Standard Form LLL ;
[sbull] Approved Indirect Cost Agreement , if applicable;
[sbull] Documentation to support Sub-applicant status as a small ,
impoverished community, if appropriate , for Federal cost share of up to
90 percent ;
[sbull] Documentation for the hazard risk assessment determination .
Thi s is only r equired as part of mitigation planning sub-applications ;
[sbull] Complete Benefit-Cost Analysis documentation for mitigation
projects ;
[sbull] The Applicant should include a Program Narrative for all
the sub-applications for which PDM funding is requested . The Applicant
must rank each sub-application included in the Program Narrative in
order of their priority based on the Applicant 's mitigation plan . Only
one sub-application should be ranked number l , 2 , 3, etc . The Program
Narrative should include :
(1) Individual activity l ocation and name o f Sub-Applicant ;
(2) Timeline/s c hedule for each activity;
Page 4of12
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings~downs.COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\pdrr ... 7/10/2003
(3) Individual activity costs, including Federal and non-Federal
shares;
(4) Activity-specific scopes of work, including a list of
properties, if applicable;
(5) Certification that the Applicant has evaluated the included
activities, that they meet all PDM program eligibility criteria, and
that they will be implemented in accordance with 44 CFR Part 13,
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments;
(6) Responses to the Supplemental Questions for each Sub-applicant
activity for competitive ranking and evaluation (Supplemental Questions
are available for Applicants and Sub-applicants on the FEMA Web site :
http ://www .fema.gov/fima/pdrn .shtm);
[[Page 40286))
(7) Recommendations and documentation regarding the environmental
review required by 44 CFR Part 10 , Environmental Considerations, and
other applicable laws and executive orders, including r esponses to
Established Questions for mitigation projects and complete
environmental/historic documentation (the environmental/historic
Established Questions are available for Applicants and Sub-applicants
on the FEMA Web site : http ://www .fema .gov/fima/pdrn .shtm); and
(8) Assurance that the Sub-application is complete and addresses
all program requirements including the Supplemental Questions, thereby
meeting the program criteria outlined under section 203(g) of the
Stafford Act .
National Priority for FY 2003
Page 5of12
For FY 2003, FEMA has established a National priority on funding
mitigation projects that address NFIP repetitive flood loss properties.
By focusing on the mitigation of NFIP repetitive flood loss properties
through acquisition, relocation, elevation, floodproofing , and minor
structural projects that save lives and protect property, there will be
significant reductions to the NFIP claims payments ; improvement to the
soundness of the National Flood Insurance Fund; and reduction to
disaster housing payments , emergency response expenses , and disaster
assistance to fund the repair of the infrastructure . In addition , fewer
families will lose wages and fewer businesses will suffer reduced '
profits as a result of flooding . Also, in the case of property
acquisition, there will be increased recreational opportunities and an
enhancement of t he environment through the creation of open space along
r-ivers and streams. Most importantly, communities and their residents
will be safer from flood hazards .
Eligible Activities and Associated Costs
Mitigation Planning. Applicants may request mitigation planning
funds to provide mitigation planning assistance to Sub-applicants ,
including del ivery of mitigation planning workshops and assistance in
the development of mitigation plans . Applicants and Sub-applicants may
request mitigation planning funds to develop State, Tribal , and local
multi-hazard mitigation plans that meet the planning criteria outlined
in 44 CFR part 201 pursuant to section 322 of the Stafford Act , 42
U.S .C . 5133, including the development of risk assessments for
mitigation plans . Proposals may be submitted for countywide or multi-
jurisdictional plans since many mitigation issues are better resolved
by evaluating hazards in a more comprehensive fashion , however, multi-
jurisdictional plans must be adopted by all jurisdictions covered by
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\jdowns. COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 711012003
the plan . Mu l ti-hazard mitigation planning must primarily focus on
natural hazards but may also address hazards caused by non-natural
forces.
Because FEMA's National priority for FY 2003 is to fund proposals
that address NFIP repetitive flood loss properties, communities with
NFIP repetitive flood loss properties are urged to address those
properties in their risk assessment and planning process.
As part of the competitive grant program, up to 10 percent of the
funds requested in the mitigation planning sub-application may be used
for information dissemination activities regarding cost-effective
mitigation technologies . These activities may include marketing and
outreach (brochures and videos , etc .), related to the proposed
mitigation p l anning activity .
Mitigation Projects . Multi-hazard mitigation projects must
primarily focus on natural hazards but may also address hazards caused
by non-natural forces . Funding is restricted to a maximum of $3 million
of Federal funds per project . The following are eligible types of
mitigation projects :
[sbull) Property acquisition or relocation of hazard prone property
for conversion t G open space in perpet uity;
[sbull) Structural and non-structural retrofitting (including
designs and feasibility studies when included as part of the
construction project) for wildfire, seismic, wind or flood hazards
(e .g., elevation, storm shutters, hurricane clips);
[sbull) Minor structural hazard control or protection projects that
may include vegetation management, and stormwater management (e .g .,
culverts, floodgates , retention basins); and,
[sbull) Localized flood control projects , such as certain ring
levees and f l oodwall systems, that are designed specifically to protect
critical facilities and that do not constitute a section of a larger
flood control system.
Mitigation projects must also meet the following general criteria :
(1) Be cost-effective and substantially reduce the risk of future
damage, hardship, loss, or suffering resulting from a major disaster,
consistent with 44 CFR 206.434(c) (5) and related guidance, and have a
Benefit Cost Analysis that results in a benefit cost ratio of at least
1 .0 . Mitigation projects without a Benefit Cost Analysis or with a
benefit cost ratio less than 1 .0 will not be considered for the PDM
competitive grant program. Mitigation projects with higher benefit cost
ratios will be more competitive . Applicants may use programs or
mechanisms other than the FEMA benefit-cost model to conduct the
Benefit Cost Analysis; however the methodology used must be consistent
with the FEMA benefit-cost model and approved in advance by FEMA . To
facilitate the review and approval of eligible mitigation activities ,
FEMA has developed an alternative approach to determine cost
effectiveness for mitigating certain NFIP repetitive loss properties
(information on the alternative approach to determine cost
effectiveness is available for Applicants and Sub-applicants on the
FEMA Web site: http://www.fema.gov/fima /pdm.shtm);
(2) Be in conformance with the current FEMA-approved State hazard
mitigation plan ;
(3) Solve a problem independently or constitute a functional
portion of a solution where there is assurance that the project as a
whole will be completed, consistent with 44 CFR 206.434 (c) (4);
(4) Be in conformance with 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and
Protection of Wetlands , 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations;
(5) Not duplicate the assistance that another Federal agency or
program has the primary authority to provide, consistent with 44 CFR
206 .434 (g);
(6) Be located in a community that (a) does not have a SFHA , or (b)
Page 6of12
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\jdowns. COCS-NET\Local %20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7 /10/2003
is participating in the NFIP if the community has an identified SFHA (a
FHBM or FIRM has been issued). The community must not be on probation ,
suspended or withdrawn from the NFIP ; and,
(7) Meet the requirements of Federal, State, and local laws .
As part of the competitive grant , up to 10 percent of the funds
requested in the project sub-application may be used for information
dissemination activities regarding cost-effective mitigation
technologies . These activities may include marketing and outreach
(brochures and videos , etc.), related to the proposed mitigation
project.
Applicant Management Costs. Applicants may request up to 10 percent
of the total planning and project grant funding requested for
management costs to support the solicitation, review and processing of
PDM sub-applications and awards , and to provide technical assistance to
Sub-applicants , including assisting Sub-applicants with Benefit Cost
Analysis and environmental and historic documentation . Care must be
taken not to provide more technical assistance to one Sub-applicant
than
[[Page 40287]]
another to avoid the appearance of pre-selection . If requested,
indirect costs must be included as part of management costs and must be
supported with a current Indirect Cost Rate approved by a Federal
Cognizant Agency. However , in no case will the amount of funding
awarded for management costs exceed 10 percent of the total amount
awarded for mitigation planning and project sub-grants . There is no
waiver to increase Applicant Management Costs .
Applicants that request management costs must submit a separate
sub-application for their management costs . Management costs will not
factor into the competitive evaluation of planning or project proposals
submitted by the Applicant and do not need a Benefit Cost Analysis .
Funding for Applicant management costs will not be awarded until all
planning and project sub-applications have been awarded to ensure that
Applicant management costs do not exceed 10 percent of the total
planning and project sub-grant awards . Management costs will be cost
shared with up to 75 percent of eligible costs provided by FEMA and at
least 25 percent provided by a non-Federal source to the maximum
Federal share approved by FEMA .
Sub-applicant Management Costs. Sub-applicants may request a
maximum of 5 percent of the total gran " unding requested for
management costs to support approved planning activities or projects .
Sub-applicant management costs must be included as part of the planning
activity or project costs and, therefore, must be included in the
Benefit Cost Analysis for projects . If requested, indirect costs must
be included as part of the Management Costs and must be supported with
a current Indirect Cost Rate approved by a Federal Cognizant Agency.
However, in no case will the total Federal share for any project,
including management costs, exceed $3 million . There is no waiver to
increase Sub-applicant Management Costs .
Ineligible Activities
Ineligible Mitigation Projects . The following mitigation projects
are ineligible for the PDM program :
[sbull] Major flood control projects such as dikes , levees ,
floodwalls , seawalls, groins , jetties, dams , waterway c hannelization ;
beach nourishment or renourishment ;
[sbull] Warning systems ;
[sbull] Engineering designs that are not integral t o a proposed
Page 7of12
file ://C :\Docurnents%2 0and%20Settings\jdowns. COCS-NET\Local%2 0Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7 /10/2003
project;
[sbull] Feasibility studies that are not integral to a proposed
project;
(sbull] Drainage studies that are not integral to a proposed
project;
[sbull] Generators that are not integral to a proposed project;
[sbull] Phased or partial projects;
[sbull] Flood studies or mapping; and,
[sbull] Response and communication equipment .
Cost Overruns . The PDM program is a competitive grant program and,
therefore, award amounts are final . There are no cost overruns
associated with this program .
Cost Share Requirement
FEMA will contribute up to 75 percent of the total amount approved
under the grant award, to implement approved activities. At least 25
percent of the total approved under the grant award must be provided
from a non-Federal source . Grants awarded to small, impoverished
communities may receive a Federal share of up to 90 percent of the
total amount approved under the grant award, to implement eligible
approved activities . A small, impoverished community must meet all of
the following criteria :
[sbull] It must be a community of 3 ,000 or fewer individuals that
is identified by the State as a rural community, and is not a remote
area within the corporate boundaries of a larger city;
[sbull] It must be economically disadvantaged, with residents
having an average per capita annual income not exceeding 80 percent of
national per capita income, based on best available data;
[sbull] It must have a local unemployment rate that exceeds by one
percentage point or more, the most recently r eported, average yearly
national unemployment rate; and
[sbull] It must meet any other factors as determined by the State
in which the community is located.
All non-Federal contributions , cash and in-kind, are accepted as
part of the non-Federal share. Except as allowed by Federal statute, no
other Federal funds can be used as a cost share . Requirements for in-
kind contributions can be found in 44 CFR 13 .24 . In-kind contributions
must be directly related to eligible program costs . The following
documentation is required for third-party cash and in-kind
contributions : record of source of donor , dates , rates , amounts , and
deposit slips for cash contributions .
Evaluation and Award Processes
National Ranking . FEMA will score all eligible activities on the
basis of predetermined, objective , quantitative factors to calculate a
National Ranking Score . Mitigation planning activities will be scored
separately from mitigation projects.
[sbull] Ranking factors for competitive mitigation planning
activities, listed in order of importance, are :
(1) Sub-applicant 's assessment of risks by hazard ;
(2) The priority given to the sub-application by the Applicant;
(3) Community mitigation factors such as Community Rating System
class, Cooperating Technical Partner, participation as a Firewise
Community, and adoption of codes to include Building Code Effectiveness
Grading Schedule, International Code Series and National Fire
Protection Association 5000 Code ;
(4) Status of FEMA-approved local , Standard State/Tribal and
Enhanced State/Tribal mitigation plans ; and,
Page 8of12
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\jdowns. COCS-NEnLocal%20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7 /10/2003
(5) Status of the Sub-applicant as a small, impoverished community.
[sbull] Ranking factors for mitigation projects, listed in order of
importance with the same importance given to numbers 5 , 6, and 7 , are:
(1) Benefit Cost ratio by hazard based on Applicant 's Benefit Cost
Analysis ;
(2) The priority given to the sub-application by the Applicant ;
(3) Community mitigation factors such as Community Rating System
class, Cooperating Technical Partner, participation as a Firewise
Community, and adoption of codes to include Building Code Effectiveness
Grading Schedule , International Code Series and National Fire
Protection Association 5000 Code ;
(4) Status of FEMA-approved local , Standard State/Tribal and
Enhanced State/Tribal mitigation plans ;
(5) Percent of the population benefiting (equals the community
population divided by the individuals directly benefiting);
(6) Status of the Sub-applicant as a small , impoverished community;
and
(7) Whether the project protects critical facilities .
PDM is a competitive grant program in which Applicants compete for
limited funds and, as such, the program must emphasize funding eligible
cost-effective mitigation activities. Therefore, mitigation projects
with higher benefit cost ratios will be more competitive . To enhance
proposal competitiveness , Applicants are encouraged to conduct a
thorough Benefit Cost Analysis in accordance with this Notice that
demonstrates the maximum benefits associated with their mitigation
project. Mitigation projects with a benefit cost ratio less than 1.0
will not be considered for the PDM competitive grant program .
Proposals will be ranked in descending order based on the National
Ranking Scores , and the highest scored applications representing 150
percent of
[[Page 40288]]
funds available nationally for the competitive PDM program will
progress to the National Evaluation phase . FEMA will also include the
two highest-scoring sub-applications submitted by each State and the
two highest scoring sub-applications from Federally recognized Indian
Tribal government Applicants in the National Evaluation , if not
included in the 150 percent, to ensure a geographic spread of the
applications considered. FEMA also may include additional sub-
applications that are primarily focused on the National priority to
address NFIP repetitive flood loss properties among the sub-
applications that progress to the National Evaluation.
National Evaluation . National panels, chaired by FEMA and composed
of FEMA headquarters and regional staff, other Federal agency staff,
and State representatives, will convene to evaluate the proposals on
the basis of additional predetermined qualitative factors to cal culate
a National Evaluation Score . Mitigation planning activities will be
scored separately from mitigation projects.
[sbull] Evaluation factors for competitive mitigation planning
activities, listed in order of importance with the same importance
given to numbers 7 and 8 , are :
(1) Feasibility of project methodology and outcome;
(2) Implementation involves reasonable timeline and expectations;
(3) Sufficient staff and resources to implement ;
(4) Consistency with the National priority to address FEMA-
identified targeted NFIP repetitive flood loss properties ;
(5) Community mitigation incentives to include tax credits , waiver
of building permit fees , and building codes ;
(6) Leverages State and local community involvement through
Page 9of12
7
)..
file :/ IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings\j downs. COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7 /10/2003
partnerships;
(7) Identifies appropriate outreach activities that advance
mitigation ;
(8) Serves as a model for other communities;
(9) Innovation and creativity used as part of the best available
options; and,
(10) Nati onal Ranki ng score .
(sbull] Evaluation factors for mitigation projects , listed in order
of importance with the same importance given to numbers 9 and 10, are :
(1) Feasibility of project methodology and outcome ;
(2) Implementation involves reasonable timeline and expectations ;
(3) Suffi cient staff and resources to implement ;
(4) Consi stency with the National priority to reduce NFIP
repetitive f l ood loss properties; Federal laws and Executive Orders to
include National Environmental Policy Act , National Historic
Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, Floodplain Management , and Seismic
Safety of Fed eral Buildings ; and Federal programs such as American
Heritage Rivers Initiative, SBA Mitigation Loan Program and EPA
Watershed Initiative ;
(5) Community mitigation incentives to include tax credits, waiver
of building permit fees , and building codes ;
(6) Whether the project protects critical facilities ;
(7) Leverages State and local community involvement through
partnerships ;
(8) Serves as a model for other communities ;
(9) Offers durable financial and social benefits ;
(10) Identifies appropriate outreach activities that advance
mitigation;
(11) Innovation and creativity used as part of t he best available
options ; and,
(12) National Ranking Score .
Selection/Award. For FY 2003 PDM competitive funds , awards will be
governed by Consolidated Appropriations Resolution , Pub . L. 108-7 ,
section 203 of the Stafford Act, as amended by section 102 of the DMA,
this notice , and program guidance, which will be made available to the
public on the FEMA Internet site : http ://www .fema.gov/fima/pdm.shtm.
The Headquarters Approving Federal Official shall consider the
National Eval uation Score, any comments and recommendations from the
independent r eviewers, the National priority, and other pertinent
information to determin e which sub-applicati ons to approve . After the
sub-applications are selected, FEMA Regional offices will work with
Applicants whose sub-applications are selected to implement the grant
award .
Environmental/Historic Preservation Review Process
FEMA has determined, in accordance with 44 CFR 10 .8(d) (2) (iii),
that mitigation planning activities have no impact on the environment
and will require no further environmental or historic preservation
review . However, mitigation projects will require environmental /
historic preservation review . Construction type activities usually
require more extensive review, or even an environmental assessment with
alternat ives addressed and/or historic preservation consultation. For
selected mitigation projects that require any level of environmental/
historic preservation r eview, FEMA will not award the grant and the
Applicant may not initiate construction until FEMA has completed its
review . FEMA will complete the environmental and historic preservation
review with the assistance of both the Applicant and the Sub-applic ant .
If, after review of the responses to the established environmental/
historic questions, supporting documentation , and the consultations
Page 10of12
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\j downs.COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\Temp\pdrr ... 7/10/2003
with regulatory/resource agencies, FEMA determines that certain
compliance measures are required to address the environmental/historic
impacts of a selected project, FEMA will notify the Applicant . The
Applicant or Sub-applicant may determine whether or not to accept the
grant award based on the estimated additional cost of the compliance
measures . The amount of the Federal share will not be increased to
cover any additional costs . Therefore, it is essential that Applicants
and Sub-applicants include costs associated with any anticipated
environmental/hi storic preservation compliance measures o r alternatives
identified through the development of the environmental/historic
preservation documentation in the project budget at the time of
application submission.
Reconsideration
At its discretion, FEMA may review a decision where there is an
indication of material technical or procedural error that influenced
our decision . Requests for reconsideration based upon technical or
procedural error should be directed to the Regional Director within 60
days of receiving notice of our decision . The Regional Director will
analyze the reconsideration request and make a recommendation to the
Director of the Mitigation Division at Headquarters or his designee.
Reporting Requirements
The following reports are required from Applicants that are awarded
PDM competitive grants (Grantees):
[sbull] Federal Cash Transaction Reports . If the Grantee uses the
U.S . Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Payment Management
System-SMARTLINK , the Grantee shall submit a copy of the PMS 272 Cash
Transaction Report submitted to the HHS) to FEMA.
[sbull] Financial Status Reports . The Grantee shall submit
Financial Status Reports , SF 269 or FF 20-10 , to the FEMA regional
office within 30 days from the end of the first federal quarter
following the initial grant award. The Regional Director may waive this
initial report . The Grantee shall submit quarterly financial status
reports thereafter until the grant ends . Reports
[[Page 40289]]
are due on January 30 , April 30, July 30, and October 30 .
[sbull] Performance Reports :
(1) The Grantee shall submit performance reports (no required
format) to the FEMA Regional Office within 30 days after end of each
quarter . Reports are due January 30, April 30, July 30 and October 30 .
(2) Quarterly performance report shall consist of a comparison of
actual accompl ishment of the approved activity and report the name ,
completion status, expenditure, and payment -to-date of each approved
activity/sub-grant award under the Grant Award .
[sbull] Final Reports. The Grantee shall submit a Final Financial
Status Report and Performance Report within 90 days from Grant Award
Performance Period expiration date , per 44 CFR 13.50 .
[sbull] Enforcement . In reference to 44 CFR 13.43 Enforcement , the
Regional Director may suspend drawdowns from the HHS/Payment Management
System-SMARTLINK or take other remedial actions for non-compliance if
quarterly reports are not submitted.
Dated : July l , 2003 .
Anthony S. Lowe ,
Mitigation Division Director, Emergency Preparedness and Response
Page 11 of 12
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\jdowns. COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7 /10/2003
Directorate.
[FR Doc. 03-17043 Filed 7-3-03 ; 8 :45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-36-P
Page 12of12
file://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\jdowns. COCS-NET\Local%20Settings\ Temp\pdrr... 7110/2003
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis
of PDM Applications
The pwpose of this attachment is to provide information about how FEMA will evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of projects submitted for funding under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation
(PD:rvf) grant program. It also explains the requirements for performing Benefit-C.Ost
Analysis (BCA) and providing proper documentation. Section B of this attachment includes
sources for additional technical assistance.
This attachment frequently uses the terms BCA and BCR. BCA is a Benefit-C.Ost Analysis, which is
the method by which the future benefits of a mitigation project are determined and compared to its
cost. The BCR is the Benefit-C.Ost Ratio, which is a numerical expression of the cost-effectiveness of
a project. BCR.s over 1.0 have more benefits than costs, and are therefore cost-effective.
As described in the Guidance for the PDM Program, FEMA will conduct a review of the cost-
effectiveness of projects submitted for grants. A BCA will be required for all mitigation projects.
These BCAs will be evaluated bya National Benefit-C.Ost Review Panel that will be convened by
FEMA The panel will evaluate the reasonableness, credibility, and accuracy of all BCAs by
reviewing the data provided in the application and the methods used in the analysis, focusing on:
•Technical accuracy,
• Supporting documentation, and
• Source credibility.
BCAs that are technically correct and thoroughly documented will be validated and the BCR
incorporated directly into the overall National Ranking (see Attachment 1, Grant Guidance FY 2003
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program -Competitive Grants, DFDA 83.557). Projects where BCAs are
inadequately documented or where critical data or sources appear unreasonable will be less
competitive, and in some cases may be deemed completely inadequate and removed from funding
consideration.
This attachment is divided into the following parts:
A BCA Requirements
B. Facilitating BCA for Sub-Applicants
C Identifying C.Ost-Effective Projects
D. Technical Guidance on BCA and Documentation
E. Documentation Guidelines
F. Alternative BCA Methodology for Repetitive Loss Properties
G. Extreme BCR.s
Appendix I: Data Documentation Technical Guidance and Data Lists
Appendix II: Data Documentation Template
Attachment IV -Page 1
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
A. Benefit-Cost Analysis Requirements.
The FY 2003 PDM program was established by Congress as a nationally competitive program.
The BCR of each mitigation project will be a major factor in the evaluation of PDM projects.
Mitigation projects with higher BCRs are more likely to be funded in the nationally competitive
PDM program. Mitigation projects with BCRs less than 1.0 will not be eligible for PDM
funding.
A BCA is required for all PDM mitigation projects grant applications, including repetitive flood
loss properties and substantially damaged flood loss properties. However, BCA.s are not
required for PDM mitigation planning grant applications.
For the PDM program, the sub-applicant or applicant is required to do the BCA for their
mitigation projects as part of the project application. In the past, FEMA sometimes has
performed BCA's for its other grant program s as a form of technical assistance to applicants.
Because PDM is a competitive program and FEMA does not want to favor any particular
proposal or applicant, the Agency will not perform BCA's on behalf of applicants or sub-
applicants, but will provide a range of technical assistance (discussed later in the attachment).
FEMA's BCAs are governed by guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
OMB Grcular A-94 describes the economic principles and methods by which most Federal
programs must determine the cost-effectiveness (i.e., BCR) of funded projects. OMB A-94
states: ''Ana!Jses should include comprehensive estimates of the expetted benefits and costs to sotiery based on
estaldished definitU:ns ard practi.a:s for program and pdicy emluatim. Social ret krefi,ts, and not the krefi,ts
and eu>ts U> the Federal Gmemrrmt, shadd k the lxisis for euduati,ng Gmemrrmt program or pdU:ies that
have effects on private litizens or other levels of Government. "
Following OMB A-94, the benefits of mitigation projects are counted broadly, not narrowly. In
simple tenilS, it is proper to count all of the direct benefits of mitigation projects. The direct
benefits are simply the avoided damages, losses, and casualties that may occur in natural
disasters. As a general rule of thumb, if a natural disaster results in direct damages, losses or
casualties and a mitigation project avoids or reduces them, then it is acceptable to count these
benefits for a FEMA BCA.
The benefits of mitigation projects are simply avoided damages, losses, and casualties. Examples
of common benefits include avoided (or reduced):
• Damages to buildings, contents or infrastructure
• Economic impacts of loss of function of buildings
-Displacement costs for temporary quarters
-Loss of public services
-Loss of net business income
• Economic impacts of loss of function of infrastructure
-Road or bridge closures
-Loss of utility services
• Deaths and injuries.
Attachment IV -Page 2
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
OMB guidance excludes some benefits from consideration when conducting a BCA The most
important of these are indirect or "multiplier" effects. For example, long term changes in
regional economic activity, future employment or tourism cannot be considered benefits of
mitigation projects because they are not directly linked to the project.
For further details of categories of benefits that may or may not be counted see "What is a
Benefit?" T his document provides standardized benefit categories to count, standardized
approaches and standardized data inputs for many common mitigation projects. This document
is located on the Mitigation BCA Toolkit CD.
B. Facilitating Benefit-Cost Analysis for Sub-Applicants
Many Sub-Applicants will be faced with doing BCA's for the first time. Although BCA is a
technical process, FEMA has developed software, written materials, and training that simplifies
the process.
FEMA has a suite of BCA software for a range of major natural hazards: earthquake, fire
(wildland/urban interface fires), flood (riverine, coastal A-Zone, Coastal V-Zone), Hurricane
Wmd (and Typhoon), and Tornado.
Sometimes there is not enough technical data available to use the software mentioned above.
When this happens, or for other common, smaller-scale hazards or more localized hazards,
BCAs can be done with the Frequency Damage Method (i.e., the Riverine Limited Data
module), which is applicable to any natural hazard as long as a relationship can be established
between how often natural hazard events occur and how much damage and losses occur as a
result of the event. This approach can be used for coastal storms, windstorms, freezing,
mud/landslides, severe ice storms, snow, tsunami, and volcano hazards.
Applicants and Sub-Applicants are encouraged to use FEMA software. This will ensure that the
calculations and methods are standardized, speeding the evaluation process. Alternative BCA
software may also be used, but only if the FEMA Regional Office and FEMA Headquarters
approve the software in advance. Approvals must be written, dated, and signed. BCAs
conducted with non-FEMA software not approved in advance by FEMA will be removed from
funding consideration for the FY 2003 PDM program
FEMA has prepared a Mitigation BCA Toolkit CD. This CD includes all of the FEMA BCA
software, technical manuals, BC training courses, and other supporting documentation and
guidance. The Mitigation BCA Toolkit CD is available free from FEMA regional offices or via
the BC Hotline (bchotline@urscorp.com or (301) 670-3399 x710). The BC Hotline will have a
toll free number starting July 31 , 2003, at (866) 222-3580. The BC Hotline is also available to
provide BCA software, technical manuals, and other BCA references as well as to provide
technical support for BCA
For further technical assistance, Applicants or Sub-Applicants may contact their State Mitigation
Office, the FEMA Regional Office, or the BC Hotline. FEMA and the BC Hotline provide
technical assistance regarding how to perform a BCA but will not perform the actual BCA If
Attachment IV -Page 3
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
the Sub-Applicant is re-submining a project for which FEMA or a State performed the BCA in
the past, the Applicant and Sub-Applicant certifies that they accept the BCA as their own by
submining it as part of their application. Applicants and Sub-Applicants are encouraged to
revisit those analyses to ensure they demonstrate maximum project benefits.
C. Identifying Cost-Effective Mitigation Projects
Applicants and Sub-Applicants are encouraged to consider the idea of "risk" when identifying
and analyzing mitigation projects for the PDM program. Risk is simply the threat to the built
environment (buildings and infrastructure) and people (casualties) expressed in terms of dollars.
Risk depends both on the frequency and severity of natural hazards and on the vulnerability of
the built environment and people. The highest risk situations have a combination of high
hazard, high vulnerability, and high value of inventory (buildings, infrastructure, people) exposed
to the hazard. This concept of risk is summarized in the figure below (using flood as
an example):
HAZARD & RISK
FLOOD PROPERTY
HAZARD x EXPOSED FLOOD RISK
(Frequency & TO FLOODS (Dollars $$)
Severity)
Probability of Value & Severity of Threat
Damaging Floods Vulnerability of to the Built
Property Exposed to Environment
Flood Hazard
While it is generally true that high risk situations have the highest potential benefits, the cost
effectiveness of mitigation projects also depends directly on how much they cost. The BCR.
(which will be used to rank projects) is a ronparison of benefits to costs. Even in situations where
risk appears relatively small, such as a rural culvert washing out every year, an inexpensive
mitigation project may be highly cost-effective. Projects that mitigate "big" risk are not
necessarily more cost effective.
D. Technical Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analyses and Documentation
It is the Applicant and Sub-Applicant's responsibility to provide a BCA that is reasonable,
credible, and well documented. A National Benefit-CDst Review Panel (see Section F) will be
convened to rank all PDM projects by BCR. The Review Panel evaluation and ranking will be
Attachment IV -Page 4
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
based solely on documentation provided in the project application. Thus, it is essential that
every application provide full documentation of the BCA
A well-documented BCA means that knowledgeable subject matter experts (BC
analysts) should be able to re-create the Sub-Applicant's BCA from the supporting
documentation, from the project application, without any additional explanation.
Each application must include the following essential documentation:
1. A narrative describing the details of the mitigation project, including what the
hazard (e.g., flood) is, what damages and losses it is causing, and how the
mitigation project addresses the problem.
2. Documentation of the mitigation project scope and cost, including engineering
cost estimates whenever possible.
3. An electronic or paper copy of the full benefit-cost analysis (an electronic copy is
strongly encouraged).
4. Full documentation of each data entry that affects the numerical BCR (see further
details below). In the FEMA software, green and blue data entry cells represent
entries that affect the numerical BCR. Thus, when using the FEMA software,
documentation should be provided for the source and validity of each green and
blue data entry cell input into the BCA software.
When evaluating projects, FEMA will consider the accuracy of data, completeness of
documentation, and the credibility of data sources (see Appendix I). In a nutshell, the numerical
values, sources, and assumptions in a BCA must make sense and be well documented.
The following technical guidance is intended to help Applicants and Sub-Applicants provide
BCA.s that meet the criteria of reasonable, credible, and well documented.
1. Use the FEMA BCA software whenever possible.
2. An application's project scope should be carefully explained with enough detail to
understand exactly area/buildings/ people are affected by the project and what the
project will do to mitigate risk. For example, acquire and demolish 18 houses on Main
Street is a clear statement of a mitigation project, when accompanied by more details
(addresses, building types, square footages, building values, first floor elevations etc.).
On the other hand, "implement measures to reduce flooding on Main Street" is not
detailed enough.
3. Project costs should be fully documented and supported with cost estimates from
appropriate sources. For BCA, the project cost is always the total project cost, not
simply the FEMA share.
4. BCA is a net present value calculation that takes into account the useful life of mitigation
projects and the time value of money. For all FEMA projects the O.MB-mandated
discount rate of 7% must be used for performing BCA.s. In addition, a useful life
Attachment IV -Page 5
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
appropriate for the specific mitigation project must be used for all BCAs. For guidance
on project useful lifetimes, see ''What is a Benefit?" and other guidance on the Mitigation
BCA Toolkit CD or contact your FEMA Regional Office or the BC Hotline.
5. Each data input for BCA that affects the numerical BCR must be fully and carefully
documented. It is recommended to use standard FEMA methodology and default data
when it applies.
a. Some data inputs may be based on national or typical data and use of such data is
encouraged, when applicable to specific projects. Examples of such data include
the damage data percentages in FEMA BCA software, and typical values for
economic impacts of road and bridge closures and loss of function of utilities
(reference: What is a Berefi.t?').
b. Many data inputs are project specific and must be documented by local data.
Examples of such data include: building types, building areas, building values,
first floor elevations, values of public service, occupancy.
E. Data Documentation Guidelines
It is important to document all of the data in a BCA that affects the numerical BCR.
Documentation must be complete enough so the Review Panel may evaluate the project and the
accuracy of the data, using onlythe information in the project application file. For example, a
statement that "damages in the flood of April 1, 2003 totaled about $2,000,000 in Smalltown" is
not sufficient. Rather, documentation should describe where the damage occurred, with
breakdowns of damages to buildings, contents, infrastructure, people, etc., with enough detail to
evaluate the accuracy of the damage estimate.
Documentation must include hazard data (flood, earthquake, etc.), building or infrastructure
damage data, and information supporting economic losses and casualties.
Data from FEMA BC software and values from FEMA guidance such as ''What is a Benefit"
will be accepted as credible. Data from recognized sources such as the US Geological Survey
(USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), stage agencies and
academic organizations have a high degree of credibility. Where data is purely local, supporting
documentation from an engineer or other qualified source improves the credibility and
robustness of documentation. Any deviations from standard procedures, methods, techniques,
or guidance must be thoroughly explained and documented. In all cases, applications should
include written backup for the data that is used (copies of web pages, copies of data from Flood
Insurance Studies etc. Appendix I contains lists of important BCA data inputs for mitigation
projects addressing the major hazards.
Appendix II contains a sample data documentation template for flood hazard mitigation
projects. The template defines the data, lists sources, and describes what documentation is
appropriate. The Mitigation BCA Toolkit CD has further examples and blank hazard-specific
templates for use by Applicants or Sub-Applicants. The templates should be used to ensure
that data, documentation and source credibility are adequate for FEMA's review.
Attachment IV -Page 6
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
F. Alternative BCA Method for Repetitive Flood Loss Properties
FEMA is introducing a pilot program that allows a simplified, BCA methodology for certain
repetitively flooded properties insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These are properties that have experienced four or more insured flood losses, or have the
highest severity of flooding (i.e., cumulative losses paid exceeds the propertyvalue). There are
approximately 10,000 such properties, which represent about one quarter of one percent of all
NFIP policies. This alternative methodology may only be applied to projects meeting the
following criteria:
• Projects that address pilot NFIP repetitive loss properties on the list provided with this
memorandum;
• Projects that are designed to accomplish property acquisition/ demolition, structure
relocation or structure elevation; and
• For structural elevation projects, each structure must provide a minimum 1-foot of
freeboard above the base flood elevation (BFE) or higher elevation as needed to provide
100-year flood protection plus 1-foot of freeboard. More stringent State or local
requirements must be met where applicable .
For these pilot NFIP repetitive loss structures, FEMA has calculated "Potential Future Damages
Avoided." For acquisition, relocation or elevation projects for properties on this list, a BCR may
be calculated simply as:
Potential Future Avoided Damages I Total Project Cost= BCR.
This analysis considers only insured losses (building and contents damages). Other economic
impacts (displacement costs for temporary housing and uninsured losses) are not included. If
desired, a traditional BCA can be conducted to consider only benefits other than avoided
building and contents damages. Then, the total benefits are the sum of the Potential Future
Avoided Damages and the additional benefits and the BCR may be calculated simply as:
(Potential Future Avoided Damages +Additional benefits) I Total Project Cost= BCR.
G. Extreme BCRs
There are no realistic hazard mitigation projects with extreme BCR.s of 100s or 1000s. To have
such extreme BCR.s, the (average annuaD damages would be many times the replacement value
of the building. Such situations would be impossible to tolerate economically and/ or the facility
would have to be damaged so many times per year than repairs would be literally continuous and
endless.
Based on experience we have found that many reported BCR.s of 10 to 100 are also incorrect,
based on illogical or faulty data or analyses. There are a few mitigation projects where BCR.s
may approach or exceed 10, but these are rare and are most often where a non-structural
mitigation project protects something of much higher value. Examples may include storm
Attachment IV -Page 7
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
shutters for critical facilities in hurricane prone areas or non-structural earthquake projects that
protect very high value or critical facilities. Therefore, PDM projects submitted with extremely
high BCRs will be reviewed very carefully.
Attachment IV -Page 8
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Appendix I.
Data Documentation Technical Guidance and Data Lists
This appendix contains additional technical infonnation about BCA and hazard specific lists of data
parameters for BCA.
As discussed in the BCA sections of the PDM Guidance, all BCAs submitted by Applicants or Sub-
Applicants will be evaluated by a National Review Panel for three general qualities
• Technical Accuracy
• Supporting Documentation
• Source Credibility
All input data that affect the numerical BCR must be thoroughly documented by the
Applicant or Sub-Applicant in the project application. Evaluation and ranking will be based
solely on infonnation provided in the application.
There are several evaluation criteria that apply to every mitigation project, for every type of hazard.
1. Use of FEMA BCA software is strongly encouraged. Non-FEMA software may be used if
any only if the software is approved in advance in writing by both the FEMA Region and
FEMA headquarters.
2. The OMB-mandated is discount rate of 7% must be used for all BCAs.
3. Mitigation project scope must be explained in sufficient detail so that evaluators may
understand fully what the hazard (e.g. flood) is, what damages and losses it is causing how
the project works to mitigate the identified problems, and how effective the project will be in
reducing future damages and losses. Acquisition/ relocation is the only common mitigation
project that is 100% effective in avoiding future damages and losses. For all other types of
projects, documentation must be provided to determine how effective the project will be in
reducing damages after mitigation at various levels of hazard severity or frequency.
4. Project costs must be fully documented and supported with engineering cost estimates
whenever possible. For BCA, the project cost is always the total project cost, not the FEMA
share. If annual maintenance costs are necessary for a mitigation project to be effective,
such costs must be included and documented. Similarly, if temporary relocation of
occupants is necessary in order to complete a mitigation project (e.g., seismic structural
retrofit of building), then such costs must be included and documented
5. Project useful life must be consistent with FEMA guidance and practice. See "What is a
Benefit?" guidance and the technical manuals for the FEMA BCA software or consult
FE~ Regional Offices or the BC Hotline for guidance on useful life for specific mitigation
proJects.
6. The benefits of avoiding or reducing casualties may be significant for some types of projects
(e.g., many seismic projects). However, for many common types of mitigation projects, such
as flood projects other than flash flooding or dam failure, life safety benefits are often
Attachment IV -Page 9
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
negligible or non-existent. Any BCA that claims life safety benefits must carefully and
thoroughly document the direct connection between the proposed mitigation project and
reductions in expected future deaths and injuries. For FEMA statistical values for injuries
and deaths see "What is a Benefit?" guidance.
7. Many of the FEMA BCA modules contain typical or default data. Use of such data will be
accepted as long as the data are applicable to the specific mitigation project. However,
Applicants and Sub-Applicants must understand the applicability of the typical or default
data. For example, use of residential depth-damage percentages for infrastructure or a
wastewater treatment plant, or use of seismic damage percentages for buildings for non-
structural or infrastructure projects would be incorrect, which would impact the review and
evaluation process.
The number and types of data inputs for BCA vary depending on the hazard being addressed, the
type of mitigation project and other factors. The Common Data Inputs for BCA section of this
attachment summarize the major data inputs required for common mitigation projects for the most
common hazards.
The relative importance of each data input on the BCR varies significantly from project to project.
For example, life safety benefits (avoided deaths and injuries) may be very important for some types
of mitigation projects (e.g., seismic structural retrofits of buildings) but may be negligible or non-
existent for other types of projects. Data inputs are listed in approximate order of importance, but
Applicants and Sub-Applicants must realize that the actual order of importance varies from project
to proJect.
For hazards that are addressed by less-common mitigation projects (Example: Utility protective
measures for Ice Storms), the specific data inputs required for BCA may vary from those in the
Common Data Inputs for BCA section of this attachment. In such cases, Applicants and Sub-
Applicants are responsible for ensuring that all data inputs for their specific mitigation projects are
thoroughly documented, regardless of whether or not the data inputs are included on the following
data lists.
Many of the data items listed below have specific "terms of art" meaning in BCA. Applicants, Sub-
Applicants and BC analysts are encouraged to obtain technical materials, take training when
available, and contact the BC hotline at bchotline@urscorp.com or by phone at (301) 670-3399 x710
(toll free startingJuly31, 2003, at (866) 222-3580), or FEMA regional offices if they need assistance
with understanding these data terms or with any other aspects of BCA.
Attachment IV -Page 10
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Common Data Inputs for BCA
Frequency-Damage Analysis Methodology (Flood and Most Other Hazards)
The frequency-damage module (Riverine Limited Data Module) was designed for BCA of flood
mitigation projects for locations without quantitative flood hazard data (i.e., outside of mapped
flood plains) and/ or without first floor elevation data. This module can also be used for any other
hazard (e.g., ice storms, snow, windstorms) for which frequency damage relationships can be derived
from historical damage data and/ or engineering judgment.
The frequency damage method should never be used for BCA of seismic, hurricane wind, or
tornado mitigation projects. For these hazards, national quantitative hazard data exists and, thus,
much more accurate BCAs can be conducted using the hazard specific BCA software for
earthquakes, hurricane wind or tornadoes. Common data inputs include:
1. Documentation of event frequency
2. Pre-mitigation damages and losses in high frequency events (1to10 year recurrence intervaD
3. Pre-mitigation damages and losses in moderate frequency events (10 to 50 year recurrence
intervaD
4. E ffectiveness of mitigation project -to what level of event does the project avoid or reduce
future damages?
5. All pre-mitigation damages or losses with high value
6. All estimates of deaths and injuries
7. Pre-mitigation damages in losses in low frequency events ( >50 year recurrence intervaD
Engineering Data Analysis Methodology
Flood Hazards (Riverine, Coastal A-Zone and Coastal V-Zone Full Data Modules)
The engineering data analysis method uses quantitative data to determine the frequency and severity
of flood events, and engineering data to calculate damages and losses before and after mitigation.
Common data inputs include:
1. Finished floor elevation
2. Flood elevation data (typically 10-, 50-, 100-and 500-year)
3. Flood discharge data (Riverine only)
4. Building type
5. Building replacement value
6. Depth-damage functions (if not FEMA software typical values)
7. Building damage percentage resulting in demolition
8. Contents replacement value
9. Functional downtime and value of loss of service (especially if large fraction of benefits)
10. Continuity premium for loss of public services (if used)
11. Displacement times and costs (if not FEMA typical values)
12. Building area
13. Net business income (if commercial property)
Attachment IV -Page 11
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Engineering Data Analysis Methodology
Seismic Hazards (Seismic Full Data Module: Structural Mitigation Projects for Buildings)
N ote: several imponant aspects of the Seismic Full Data BCA module are outdated. See the
Mitigation BCA Toolkit for essential updates for seismic hazard data, seismic damage functions,
casualty rates and other critical inputs for BCA. Do not use the Seismic Full Data Module
without incotporating these updates. Common data inputs include:
1. Seismic hazard data (see Mitigation BCA Toolkit)
2. Soil type (see Mitigation BCA Toolkit)
3. Building structural system type
4. Building replacement value
5. Seismic-damage functions (if not FEMA software typical values -see Mitigation BCA
Toolkit)
6. Building damage percentage resulting in demolition
7. Building occupancy
8. Casualty rate estimates (see Mitigation BCA toolkit)
9. Contents replacement value
10. Functional downtime and value of loss of service (especially if large fraction of benefits)
11. Continuity premium for loss of public services (if used)
12. Displacement times (if not FEMA typical values) and costs
13. Building area
14. Net business income (if commercial property}
Notes on other types of seismic hazard mitigation projects.
The Seismic Full Data module should not be used for non-structural mitigation projects such as
bracing or anchoring contents, equipment, or for projects addressing non-structural building
elements such as ceilings or windows. For such projects, the Non-Structural Seismic Module should
be used (see Mitigation BCA Toolkit). The Non-Structural module contains BCA templates and
typical data for many types of common non-structural projects. The specific data required vary
from project to project data documentation requirements are generally similar to those for buildings.
For non-structural projects documentation should be provided for all data entries applicable to the
specific type of mitigation project.
Engineering Data Analysis Methodology
Hurricane Wind Hazards (Hurricane Wind Full Data Module)
1. Wmd hazard data
2. Distance inland
3. Building type
4. Building replacement value
5. Wmd-damage functions (if not FEMA software typical values)
6. Effectiveness of mitigation project in reducing damages
7. Building damage percentage resulting in demolition
8. Contents replacement value
Attachment IV -Page 12
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM Applications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
9. Functional downtime and value of loss of service (especially if large fraction of benefits)
10. Continuity premium for loss of public services (if used)
11. Displacement times (if not FEMA typical values) and costs
12. Building area
13 . Net business income (if commercial property)
Wildland Urban Interface Fire Mitigation Projects
(Wildland Fire BCA Module)
1. Fire hazard data - standard method
a. Sample area of similar fire hazard
b. Total acres burned in sample area over time period
c. Number of years in time period
2. Fire hazard data -user-defined burn interval -full documentation is extremely important
for use of user-defined bum interval
3. Damages and Losses Before Mitigation: All of these data must be ONLY for the specific
geographic area directly affected by the mitigation project
a. Building value
b. Contents value
c. Infrastructure
d. Timber value
e. Fire suppression costs
f. Other
g. Number of residents
h. Annual death rate per 1,000,000
4. Effectiveness of mitigation measure (percent reduction in damages and losses) -full
documentation is extremely important for this data entry. Consultation with fire service
professional is highly recommended.
Standard Analysis Methodology
Tornado Hazards
1. Building type
2. Shelter design wind speed
3. Occupancy[numbers vs. time]
4. Injury and mortality percentages [curves], if default not used
5. Building dimensions
6. Building damage percentage resulting in demolition
7. Shelter floor area
Attachment IV -Page 13
elevation
[FFE]
Flood
Elevation
Data
Flood
Discharge
Data
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM App 1cations
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Appendix II
Data Documentation Template
Expressed in • The FFE is the elevation of • Survey, Elevation
feet above mean the top of the finished Certificate, other formal
sea level [MSL] flooring of the lowest floor. records.
• The elevation should be • If estimated, include a
measured at the first floor description of how derived
abme grade, not at the and copies of all pertinent
basement level. The FFE is references, such as
a primary determinant of topographic maps, surveys,
flood risk photographs of mud lines,
etc.
• If estimated, indicate who
erf ormed the estimate.
Elevations of Specific values read from flood Provide copy of flood profile
10-, 50-, 100-profile graph (in the Flood graph and location of project
and 500-year Insurance Study) for the project site along the bottom axis of the
floods location along the reach of the profile.
flood source river .
Stream The volume of water that will Provide copy of discharge table
discharges flow down a river or stream
(volumes) for during a specified flood.
10-, 50-, 100-, Discharge is usually measured in
and 500-year cubic feet per second.
floods
Engineers, Licensed/Registered
Surveyors, Certified Floodplain
Managers, local floodplain
administrators, insurance agents,
planners with floodplain
expenence.
FEMA Flood Insurance Study or
local flood study.
FEMA Flood Insurance Study or
local flood study.
Attachment IV -Page 14
Dau Type
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM App 1cations
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Value Description Documentation
Building type Selection of one • How many stories and Tax records, appraisals, letters
of the building whether or not there is a from homeowners,
types basement. photographs, etc.
• Building type is a major
determinant of anticipated
damage from floods.
Building Expressed as • The cost for labor and Letter from construction or
replacement dollars per materials to build a similar contracting firm, letter from
value square foot structure in the same place. local building inspection
• A key determinant of the depanment, photocopy of page
amount of damage from or pages from standard cost
future floods. reference manuals.
Depth-Expressed as the • Estimate of building • If typical values in FEMA
damage percent damage damages at each flood software are used then
function of the building depth. provide print out of
replacement • Relationship between software.
value at each flooding depth in feet and • If user-determined values
flood depth. damages in dollars; as the are used provide full
flood depth increases, documentation of reasons
damages will typically for differences from FEMA
mcrease. typical values.
Source
Homeowner, local building
inspection depanment, local tax
assessor's office, title documents,
etc.
• Local building inspector,
contractor, builder or
construction company,
architect or building engineer.
• Standard references such as
Marshall & Swift Residential
Cost Handbook, Means
Square Foot Cost Guide, etc.
• FEMA typical values in
software or
• Estimates based on historical
losses and engineering
judgment.
Attachment IV -Page 15
Data Type
Building
damage
(percentage)
that would
result in
demolition
C.ontents
value
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM App 1cations
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Value Description Document,uion
Percentage of • FEMA standard value is • No documentation required
building 50%. if standard value used.
replacement • Low cost or poorly • Provide documentation and
value maintained structures may the basis of the estimate for
have lower values; structures values other than 50%.
of historical or other
importance may have higher
values.
• Lower demolition
percentages result in higher
BCRs.
Expressed as • The cost to replace the • 30% value for residential
dollars contents of a structure. structures: no
• C.ontents damage includes documentation required.
items like furniture, office • For other values for
eqwpment, etc. residential buildings and for
• C.ontents do not include non-residential structures,
items that are permanent provide detailed
parts of the building such as descriptions of contents,
electrical and plumbing value and the means by
systems. which value was assessed.
• FEMA standard for
residential structures is 30%
of the replacement value of
the structure.
Source
Values other than 50% should
include consultation with real
estate appraiser, economist, local
building inspector, contractor,
builder or construction company,
architect or building engineer,
planners, etc.
• No source required if a
residential structure and
FEMA standard is used.
• Otherwise, review insurance
records, appraisals, purchase
receipts, estimates based on
current market prices for
similar contents.
Attachment IV -Page 16
Data Type
Functional
Downtime
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM App ications
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Value Description Documentation
Days, increases The time period for which • For ordinary buildings,
with flood depth public or commercial services typical values in FEMA
(building percent are lost from a building. software.
damage) • For critical buildings, use
"What is a Benefit?"
guidance.
Value of loss Dollar value of For public services, daily value • Documentation of annual
of service loss of public of service is estimated by the operating budget for public
servICes daily cost of providing service. facility.
• For critical facilities, see
What is a Benefit?
Guidance.
C.ontinuity Multiplier on Applies only to services critical
pre rm um ordinary value of to immediate disaster response • No documentation required
service and recovery (police, fire, etc.) if FEMA standard values
are used.
• Exception to standard
values requires detailed
explanation of source used
and method applied.
Source
• No local source required if
FEMA typical values are used.
• Developing non-standard
values may involve working
with organization or agency
providing service.
• Agency providing service.
• See "What is a Benefit?"
guidance for standard values.
• Developing non-standard
values may involve working
with organization or agency
providing service.
Attachment IV -Page 17
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM App 1cations
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Data Type Value Description Documenution
Displacement Expressed as • The costs borne by • Alternative living space
costs dollars per occupants during the time documented by copies of
square foot per when a structure is flooded rental costs from realtors,
month, and one and they are unable to leasing agents or
time and occupy it. newspapers, among others.
monthly costs. • Costs may include rent for • Rental for storage spaces
alternative living spaces, may be supported by copies
rent for storage space, of advertising, records of
additional commuting time, contacts with rental
additional day care, unpaid comparues.
time off work, rental trucks, • Extra commuting costs and
etc. day care may be estimated
• All these may be estimated as long as the estimation
when supported by credible methodology is explained.
documentation and sources.
Displacement Days, increases The time period for which • No documentation required
time with flood depth occupants are expected to be if FEMA standard values
(building percent displaced to temporary quarters are used for residential and
damage) due to flood damage other ordinary buildings use
typical values.
• Provide data derivation
method for techniques used.
Building floor Expressed in The total enclosed area in the Various forms are acceptable,
area square feet structure. Used in conjunction including tax records, appraisals,
with replacement value to surveys, estimates from
determine anticipated flood photographs, etc.
damages in various potential
events.
Source
• Photocopies of ads for rental
spaces in the community,
records of phone contacts
with rental agencies, receipts
from similar rentals.
• For residential properties,
typical displacement costs are
$0.50 to $1.00 per square foot
per month. Typical other
monthly costs and one-time
costs are $500 each.
• Use standard figures where
possible [i.e. 34.5 cents per
mile for additional commute].
See "What is a Benefit" guidance
for residential and critical
facilities.
• Local tax office or appraisers
office, surveyor, tide
documents with building
footprint, etc.
• Homeowner estimates or
measured drawings
accompanied by photograph,
etc.
Attachment IV -Page 18
Attachment IV: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of PDM App 1cations
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Data Type Value Description Documem.uion Source
Loss of
business
mcome
Net (not gross)
business income
For commercial facilities, loss of
net business income is the
measure of loss of function
when damage results in closure
of the facility.
No documentation required if
FEMA standard values are used.
The FEMA HAZUS earthquake
loss estimation software has
typical values for many classes of
business, applicable to all hazards.
Attachment JV -Page 19
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
Environmental/Historic Preservation
Guidance & Established Questions
An environmental and historic preservation review will be conducted for all project (non-
planning) activities proposed under FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) competitive grant
program. Sub-applicants are required to provide several pieces of important information detailed
in this guidance to support the environmental and historic preservation compliance process.
FEMA will use this information during the National Evaluation of applications and, if projects
are selected, to make the final environmental compliance determination. After formal
submission and selection of an application, FEMA will complete the environmental/historic
preservation review with the assistance of both the Applicant and the Sub-applicant.
The required environmental and historic preservation information is presented in the form of
questions and supporting documentation. The questions included in this attachment reflect what
is requested in FEMA's electronic grants (e-Grants) system and, along with the supporting
documentation, can be used as guidance when preparing either paper or e-Grants applications.
Sub-applicants must answer the initial question in each section and subsection, and provide all
relevant data requested. Some of the additional information may only be necessary if there are
potential impacts. Please provide written comment or attach relevant documents to explain any
issues identified when answering the questions, other potential impacts, special circumstances, or
environmental or historic treatment measures integrated into the project.
The information requested here is the minimum required, and should not constrain Sub-
applicants from providing more information where potential impacts are identified. It is
important that Sub-applicants provide complete and accurate information at the time of
application, as incomplete applications will not be considered for PDM competitive grants. If
Sub-applicants have questions regarding this guidance, they should consult the official
designated point of contact in their State/Tribe. For further information on FEMA's
Environmental and Historic Preservation Programs, go to http://www.fema.gov/ehp/slt.shtm.
For purposes of environmental and historic preservation review, the Sub-applicant and Applicant
should not only evaluate potential impacts of the project itself, but also any associated
construction activities such as temporary access roads, staging yards, or borrow areas. All costs
associated with treatment measures must be integrated into the project costs.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
A. National Historic Preservation Act -Historic Structures
I. Does your project affect or is it in close proximity to any buildings or structures 50 years or
more in age? YES or NO
If YES, provide the following supporting information in your application for those structures
over 50 years in age. The first item is essential. The other items should be provided as
appropriate for the project situation.
0 For each property affected identify the property address, its original date of construction,
and at least two color photographs showing at least three sides of the structure.
0 Request for information and response letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer,
and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO), as well as other sources
such as a local historical society.
0 Documentation of any structures listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places or within or near a National Register Historic District. Include, if
possible a diagram or map of the relation of the buildings(s) to the area.
0 Documentation of how the project design will minimize the effects on historic structures
or potential historic structures, and any alternatives to avoid or minimize effects on
historic structures. Please address and note associated costs in project budget.
0 For acquisition/demolition projects, data regarding consideration of elevation or
relocation as alternatives.
BACKGROUND
Reference: National Historic Preservation Act 16 U.S.C., 470 et seq. The regulations are at 36
CFR Parts 60, 61 , 63, 68, 79, and 800.
With careful planning, mitigation projects may include structures that are listed on the National
or State Register of Historic Places, such as homes, public buildings, bridges, dams, water
treatment plants and other elements of infrastructure. Even if not listed on a historic register,
buildings 50 years or more in age must be evaluated for their historical significance. Simply
being identified as historic does not mean "hands off." Indeed, in many cases it makes sense to
consider how historic and cultural resources can be protected from future damage. The
approach you take will depend on several factors, including negotiations with FEMA and the
SHPO/THPO, but may include:
• Elevation instead of acquisition/demolition: In some cases a closer look at the costs and
benefits, and creative options may make elevation a more feasib le option for a historic
structure.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
• Major Flood proofing -Although major flood proofing measures such as wall
strengthening and special closures may alter a building, an assessment may suggest that
alterations are preferred over certain future damage, especially in areas where
substantial damage can be anticipated due to the nature of the flooding characteristics.
• Wind Retrofits -Historic structures have been successfully retrofitted to strengthen
resistance to wind damage. Measures may include addition of hurricane clips, quick-
install storm shutters, and others. The State grantee agency, FEMA, and the
SHPO/THPO can work with the Sub-applicant or Applicant to consider reasonable
alternatives that might minimize adverse impacts. If you have suspected or listed
historic structures contact your State and FEMA early in the project planning process.
The State and FEMA can provide technical assistance and direction for you to evaluate
options.
• Collecting Information: The preferred source of information to determine original age of
a structure or facility is review of building permit data, engineering documents, or
tax/land records information. If other sources are used please explain the source of the
information used to make determinations. At a minimum two color photographs
showing three sides of the structure must be provided. If outbuildings are present, such
as a separate garage or barn, provide two photographs of these structures as well. If
possible, original photographs are preferred. Be sure to label the photographs.
If there are potentially historic structures, it may also be beneficial to contact the relevant
local government agency or historic society to obtain information on identification or listing
of structure(s) on local lists of historic structures and presence of local historic districts
encompassing the project area(s).
For additional information regarding historic and cultural resources requirements see
FEMA's Historic Preservation Program Web Site http://www.fema.gov/ehp/nhpa.shtm.
Additionally, see successful examples integrating historic preservation considerations into
mitigation planning and projects at http://www.fema.gov/ehp/lustron.shtm and
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/milton.shtm.
B. National Historic Preservation Act -Arch eological Resou rces
1. Does your project involve disturbance of ground? YES or NO
If yes, provide the following:
D Documentation of the ground disturbance by giving the dimensions, (area. volume, depth,
etc.) and location, and indicating the past use of the area to be disturbed, noting the extent
of previously disturbed ground. Include a site map showing the extent of ground
disturbance.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
D As appropriate for projects affecting previously undisturbed ground, attach request
information and response letter from the SHPO/THPO and/or the Tribe's cultural
resources contact if no THPO is designated.
BACKGROUND
Previously undisturbed ground includes areas that have been in agricultural use. Note this
factor when identifying the ground disturbance of the project.
For additional background material on see Background for part A.
C. Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
1. Is your project in or near (within 200 feet) any type of waterway or body of water, or
likely to effect one directly or indirectly. YES or NO
If yes, provide the following:
D Document the type of water body nearby, its dimensions, the proximity of the project
activity to the water body, and the expected and possible changes to the water body, if
any. Identify all water bodies regardless whether you think there may be an effect.
D Include a site map showing the project activities in relation to all nearby water bodies
(within 200 feet).
D If there is the potential for the project to effect any water body, request information and
response from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and your State Wildlife Agency
addressing any potential impacts and include these as documentation with your
application.
2. Does your project remove vegetation? YES or NO
If yes, provide the following:
D Document the amount and type of vegetation affected.
D Include a site map showing the extent of vegetation affected.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
3. Are federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat present in the
project area or within the county the project is located within? YES or NO
If yes, provide the following:
0 Provide as an attachment the information you obtained to identify species in or near the
project area. Ensure the source and date of the information is cited.
0 If there is any potential to affect a listed species, request information and a response
letter from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), your State Wildlife Agency,
and, if there are any ocean-going fish affected, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding potential species present and potential impacts to species. Attach
your request and the response and any other supporting information to your application.
BACKGROUND
Reference: Endangered Species Act (ESA) 16 U.S.C., 1531 et seq. with regulations at 50 CFR
Part 402, 450, 451 , 452, and 45. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.
Sub-applicants or Applicants must consult official and up to date information from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for potential federally listed threatened and endangered species.
For additional information on Threatened and Endangered Species, consult the US Fish and
Wildlife Service website at www.endangered.fws.gov, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) at www.nrnfs.noaa.gov.
Consulting with USFWS and/or NMFS is considered part of the Applicant's responsibility, as a
non-federal entity, during project application development and serves to initiate the process
under the ESA for both the applicant and FEMA. Once a project is selected, FEMA will need to
complete required consultation under Section 7 of the Act, which specifically governs federally
assisted activities.
Waterways and bodies of water: Projects and water bodies should at a minimum be identified on
a USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle. More detailed mapping is preferred if available . Waterways and
bodies of water include any type of land feature that contains or conveys waters such as
perennial, intermittent, or seasonal streams, drainage swales, seasonally wet areas, ponds, lakes,
large streams or rivers, and coastal waterways.
Vegetation: A map and photographs of large vegetation removal areas are very useful and will
expedite processing. Generally the greater the amount of vegetation affected by a project, the
greater the amount of vegetation information that is necessary. This information becomes more
critical if there is potential endangered species habitat present. Sub-applicants should talk with
your state contacts before undertaking any detailed studies or fieldwork.
If an agency suggests redesign of the project or use of measures to reduce effects on species, the
application scope of work, budget, and project decision-making description should address the
suggested changes to the maximum extent possible.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
For additional information, see the FEMA Environmental Program website for the Endangered
Species Act or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C., 661 et seq.) at
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/esa.shtm.
D. Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Executive Order 11990
(Protection of Wetlands)
1. Will the project involve dredging or disposal of dredged material, excavation, adding fill
material or result in any modification to water bodies or wetlands designated as "waters of
the U.S" as identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers or on the National Wetland
Inventory? YES or NO
If yes, provide the following, as appropriate:
D Request for information and response letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers
regarding potential for wetlands, and applicability of permitting requirements;
D Documentation of the project location on a copy of a National Wetlands Inventory map
or other available wetlands mapping information;
D Documentation of the alternatives considered to eliminate or minimize impacts to
wetlands; and
D If appropriate for the project, documentation that a permit has been applied for, and if
available, provide a copy of permits obtained at time of project application.
BACKGROUND
References: Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permitting 33 U.S.C., 1251-1387, regulations at 33
CFR Part 3300. Rivers and Harbors Act; 33 U.S.C. 403. Executive Order 11990 regulations at 44
CFR Part 9.
Waters of the United States and designated wetlands are protected through Federal legislation of
the Clean Water Act and through Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. If your
project has the potential of affecting waters, such as navigable waters, interstate waters,
wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), etc., certain steps must be taken
to identify and, if necessary, reduce the impacts to wetlands.
In addition, work involving possible obstructions in navigable waters is governed by additional
requirements under the Rivers and Harbors Act. Both wetlands and navigable waters are
administered through the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
For additional information, please visit the National Wetland Inventory web site at
www.nwi.fws.gov/mapper _tool.htm, or see the FEMA Environmental Program web site
www.fema.gov/ehp/laws.shtm
E. Executive Order 11 988 (Floodplain Management)
1. Does a FIRM or FHBM indicate the project is located in a 100 year floodplain, in a 500
year floodplain if a critical facility, in a FEMA identified floodway, or in a floodplain as
identified by some other source? YES or NO
0 If yes, provide documentation to identify the means or the alternatives considered to
eliminate or minimize impacts to floodplains. (See the 8 step process found in 44 CFR
part 9.6.)
2. Does the project alter a watercourse, water flow patterns, or a drainage way, regardless of
its floodplain designation? YES or NO
If yes, please provide the following, as appropriate:
0 Documentation of the Hydrology/Hydraulic information from a qualified engineer to
demonstrate how drainage and flood flow patterns are changed and to identify down and
upstream effects.
0 Documentation of consultation with US Army Corps of Engineers (may be included
under Part D of the Environmental Information).
0 Request for information and response letter from the corresponding State agency, if
applicable, with jurisdiction over modification of waterways.
BACKGROUND
Reference: Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, Regulations at 44 CFR Part 9.
Identifying a Floodplain: The local floodplain management administrator may be in the local,
planning, zoning, or building permit department. 100 and 500-year floodplains (A and C Zones),
floodways, and V-Zones are identified on most FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
Additionally, there may be Flood Hazard Boundary Maps rather the FIRMS for certain areas that
show the locations of floodplains without some of the detailed zone delineations. If there are
questions regarding interpretation of the NFIP maps or regarding use of the most up-to-date
maps, the Sub-applicant should consult the local floodplain management administrator, the
relevant State agency with responsibility for oversight of the NFIP or the FEMA regional office.
If there are no NFIP maps available for the community or project area, and the project appears to
be in a possible floodplain, the services of a qualified engineer may be required to obtain the
necessary information to identify the approximate location of a floodplain. In this instance
consultation with the State is recommended. The Sub-applicant may have already provided this
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
information in a section of the application that describes the hazard characteristics and the scope
of the project. It is not necessary to duplicate comments, however you should make a notation
that information is contained elsewhere in the application.
To obtain a map consult your local floodplain administrator; access FEMA's web site at
www.fema.gov, click on the link for the Flood Map Store, and navigate to the online free
viewable floodmaps, called FIRMettes; or call FEMA's map service center to order a map 1-800-
358-9616.
Floodplain Impacts: Small projects, typically with minor hydraulic and hydrologic effects, such
as culvert upgrades and stream bank stabilization require that a qualified engineer have properly
designed the project and complete at least a minimal analysis of hydrologic/hydraulic effects.
You should consult your State point of contact if you have questions regarding adequate design
or analysis of a project. A rigorous analysis and consultation with FEMA engineering and NFIP
staff is recommended for projects with potentially substantial or complex effects or for projects
located in detailed study areas with identified flood elevations as marked on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map. Consult the State contact early if it is anticipated that such an evaluation is necessary.
Additionally, if you have a critical facility involved in your project, you should consult the
regulations at 44 CFR Part 9 for this Executive Order to address requirements for critical
facilities and actions. In general, critical facilities and actions must be located outside of the
500-year floodplain or, iflocation outside the 500-year floodplain is not practicable, protected to
the 500-year flood level.
For additional information on Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, please visit
FEMA's Environmental Program web site at http://www.fema.gov/ehp/feo.shtm.
F. Coastal Zone Management Act
1. Is the project located in the State's designated coastal zone (consult State Coastal Zone
Management agency)? YES or NO
0 If yes, please obtain permit or clearance letter from the appropriate State agency that
implements the coastal zone management program or attach a request for information and
response letter regarding coastal zone management requirements for the proposed
activity. This clearance or response from this agency should identify if the action
proposed is consistent with the State plan.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
BACKGROUND
Reference: 16 U.S.C., 1451 et seq., regulations are at 15 CFR Part 923 and Part 930, Subpart D.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that States develop a State Coastal Zone
Management Plan or program, and that any Federal agency conducting or supporting activities
affecting the coastal zone conduct or support those activities in a manner that is consistent with
the approved State plan or program. Federal agencies must have a consistency determination
from the State for activities in the coastal zone to be able to fund such activities. For additional
information on the CZMA, please visit FEMA's Environmental Program web site at
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/czma.shtm.
G. Farmland Protection Policy Act
1. Will the project convert more than 5 acres of farmland outside city limits? YES or NO
If yes, provide the following:
D Completed US DA/NRCS Form AD-I006
D Response from the Natural resource Conservation Service (NRCS) regarding the
completed NRCS form.
BACKGROUND
Reference: Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)-Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549
of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-98).
The FPPA is intended to minimize the impact Federal programs have on the unnecessary and
irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. It assures that-to the extent
possible-Federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local units of
government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland. For the purpose ofFPPA,
farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance.
Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can
be forestland, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up land. For
additional information on the Farmland Protection Policy Act consult FEMA's web site at
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/other.shtm.
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
H. Hazardous and Toxic Materials
1. Is there a reason to suspect there are contaminants from a current or past use on the
property associated with the proposed project? YES or NO
2. Are there any studies, investigations, or enforcement actions related to the property
associated with the proposed project? YES or NO
3. Does any project construction or operation activities involve the use of hazardous or toxic
materials? YES or NO
4. Do you know if any of the current or past land-uses of the property affected by the
proposed project or of the adjacent properties are associated with hazardous or toxic
materials ? YES or NO
If yes to any of these questions provide the following:
0 Provide a comment and attach any relevant documentation to explain any YES answers.
0 Consult with appropriate State or local agency to obtain permit and requirements for
handling, disposing of or addressing the effects of hazardous or toxic materials.
BACKGROUND
Reference: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 42 U.S.C.
§ 9601. Standard for Hazardous Materials Environmental Site Assessments is ASTM E1527-97
This information is most relevant in property acquisition projects but can also be a consideration
in any construction project. It is very important to identify potential contamination to avoid
potential environmental liability and the associated costs. This issue should be of most concern
to Sub-applicants in buyouts because they will hold the title to acquired property. FEMA will
not fund the acquisition of contaminated property (with the exception being residential or
commercial properties containing normal quantities oflead, asbestos, home septic systems, home
heating oil tanks and normally occurring quantities of household hazardous materials).
State laws and policies vary from state to state therefore, it is important to check with state
agencies when encountering any hazardous materials issues. Some potential sources of
information include: consult with local fire marshal and other local authorities; consult with
current and previous owner/s and/or neighbors; review local permit, land and tax records; have a
qualified person walk the property; and seek assistance from State regulatory agencies.
Commercial and light industrial uses are sometimes found in residential areas. These include
activities such as commercial auto repair in the home garage, paint stripping, hairdresser,
woodworking, etc. Because not all in home commercial activities involve hazardous materials,
make sure to indicate the specific type of "in home" commercial business activity. If there was a
previous transportation facility on the property, note what the specific use may have been. For
example, a parking lot used to store heavy equipment, a service a repair shop, or a building used
for storage of vehicles or equipment. If the site is suspected to be a hazardous or toxic materials
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
concern, a site evaluation called an Environmental Site Assessment may be advisable to formally
identify hazardous materials concerns.
For additional information on Federal oversight of hazardous and toxic materials, please visit the
EPA web site at www.epa.gov/superfund/action/law/cercla.htm.
For the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, visit http://www.fema.gov/ehp/rcra.shtm
I. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and
Minority Populations
1. Are there low income or minority populations in the area of effect of the project? YES or
NO
If yes, then provide the following:
D Describe any adverse effects to those populations.
D What proportion of that population would be affected and will it be disproportionately
affected? Please include specific efforts to address the adverse impacts in your proposal
narrative and budget.
BACKGROUND
Environmental Justice requires Federal agencies to identify and address, where appropriate,
adverse health or environmental effects when they disproportionately impact on minority
populations or low-income populations in the United States. To identify areas that may be
affected by a proposed activity, you may start by contacting your local planning department,
development authority, social services agency, or other local agency to obtain information or
census data regarding low income or minority populations in the area.
For additional information of Environmental Justice, please visit the FEMA Environmental
Program web site at http://www.fema.gov/ehp/ejeo.shtm
J. Other Environmental Laws or Issues
1. Are there other environmental requirements associated with this project that you are aware
of? YES or NO
2. Are there controversial issues associated with this project? YES or NO
I-
Attachment V: Environmental/Historic Preservation Guidance & Established Questions
Pre Disaster Mitigation Program FY 2003
3. Have you conducted any public meeting or solicited public input or comments on your
specific proposed mitigation project? YES or NO
If yes to any of these questions, please provide a description of the requirements, issues or public
involvement effort.
I-
DT_OF_LO:ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 ST ZIP1 ZIP2 T_DMG_ T_DMG_PAY_BLCPA _CONT
8/18/1983 1007 E CHAPMAN CA 92631 3811 0 0 0 0
9/19/1983 1007 E CHAPMAN CA 92631 3811 4335 0 3335 0
10/16/1994 BLK 10 SEC 24 SOUTHWOOD LOT 4 BLK 10 SEC 24 SOUTHWOOD LOT 4 TX 77840 0000 100 0 0 0
10/16/1994 1501 STALLINGS #43 TX 77840 1468 229 677 0
6/4/1981 1503 GUNSMITH TX 77840 4319 0 0 0 0
9/18/1995 1515 PINRIDGE TX 77840 4527 1819 0 1319 0
10/16/1994 1903 AMBER RIDGE TX 77845 5536 100 0 0 0
10/16/1994 1911 LANGFORD TX 77840 4831 8513 1888 8013 1388
4/25/1990 LOT 22 BLK 1 EMERALD FOREST PHASE ONE TX 77840 0000 500 0 0 0
10/16/1994 ALL OF LT 8 BLK 1 REVISED CAMELOT SEC TWO & TX 77840 0000 8912 0 8162 0
11/6/2000 705 GILCHRIST TX 78040 3469 0 2969 0
4/24/1990 503 CHERRY ST BLDG 2 TX 77840 1365 4247 0 3009 0
10/16/1994 BLOCK 3 LOT 10 SOUTHWOOD NO 2' BLOCK 3 LOT 10 S WOOD NO 21 TX 77840 28154 9533 16742 0
10/17/1994 S WOOD SECTION 21 BLOCK 3 LOT 8 TX 77840 4233 0 4693 0
10/16/1994 8503 AMETHYST TX 77840 0 0 0 0
10/14/1981 507 A 507B CULPEPPER TX 99999 1500 0 930 0
10/14/1981 800 A 800B CROSS TX 99999 1342 0 1141 0
10/14/1981 808 A 808B CROSS TX 99999 1499 0 1199 0
5/20/1983 808 A 808B CROSS TX 99999 4382 0 3626 0
9/19/1983 808 A 808B CROSS TX 99999 0 0 0 0
10/17/1998 309 REDMOND DR BLDG A TX 78733 29344 0 28845 0
10/16/1994 1823 BEE CRK TX 77840 0 0 0 0
10/17/1998 309 REDMOND DR BLDG B TX 78733 6570 0 6071 0
4/24/1990 1408 ANGELINA CIR TX 77840 4953 1038 0 39 0
10/16/1994 1411 ANGELINA CIR TX 77840 4952 2917 97700 0 2417
4/24/1990 2707 SANDY CIR TX 77840 5309 5004 3229 4504 2729
4/25/1990 2707 SANDY CIR TX 77840 5309 0 0 0 0
6/30/1990 2721 ADRIENNE CR TX 77845 5321 2507 0 1265 0
4/26/1997 207 CHIMNEY HILL CIR TX 77840 1829 0 0 0 0
10/16/1994 2806 MANASSAS CT TX 77845 4129 1028 0 528 0
10/16/1994 8501 AMETHYST CT EMERALD FOREST PHASE ONE TX 77845 5539 59300 59300 93 0
10/16/1994 2708 WOODCLIFF CT TX 77845 3804 4404 0 3904 0
2/3/1992 1019 GUADALUPE DR TX 77840 4819 2265 0 1449 0
4/25/1990 1907 AMBER RIDGE DR TX 77845 5536 1504 0 504 0
10/19/1994 1907 AMBER RIDGE DR TX 77845 5536 100 0 0 0
11/3/2000 218 REDMOND DR TX 77840 1048 0 548 0
3/28/1989 2502 RAINTREE DR TX 77840 0000 0 0 0 0
5/20/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 0 0 0 0
5/20/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 0 0 0 0
5/20/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 8436 0 4165 0
5/20/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 1800 0 842 0
5/20/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 6345 2045 5844 1545
Ffuo~ fucs
1 4 )
8/18/1~o3 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 4803 888 4302 388
10/20/1984 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 8598 964 8098 464
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 9318 955 8818 320
6/17/1986 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 7506 0 7006 0
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 6019 1352 5519 852
10/20/1984 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 3822 0 3321 0
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 8795 825 8295 269
6/17/1986 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 8164 589 7664 88
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 4302 1200 3589 543
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 4803 0 3890 0
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 4775 1130 4002 630
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 4600 0 4030 0
6/17/1986 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 556 0 56 0
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 3463 853 2963 353
10/20/1984 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 2822 0 2322 0
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 4493 0 3546 0
6/17/1986 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 1195 0 695 0
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 5678 976 5179 476
10/20/1984 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 1415 0 915 0
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 2399 856 1899 356
6/17/1986 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 2338 0 1838 0
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 2951 0 2451 0
10/20/1984 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 3929 0 3428 0
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX77840 3131 4566 0 4065 0
6/17/1986 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 2834 0 2334 0
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 660 0 160 0
10/20/1984 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 3537 0 3037 0
8/18/1983 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 2993 0 2492 0
10/15/1985 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 4844 0 3980 0
6/17/1986 306 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3131 945 0 445 0
8/18/1983 306 REMOND DR TX 77840 3131 3152 1221 2651 721
10/20/1984 306 REMOND DR TX 77840 3131 720 0 219 0
10/15/1985 306 REMOND DR TX 77840 3131 2794 545 2294 20
6/17/1986 306 REMOND DR TX 77840 3131 0 0 0 0
8/18/1983 306 REMOND DR TX77840 3131 3483 0 2982 0
8/18/1983 311 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3130 2911 540 2410 40
10/20/1984 311 REDMOND DR TX77840 3130 2227 0 1726 0
10/15/1985 311 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3130 5123 505 4622 5
9/18/1983 311 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3130 5099 1208 4599 708
10/20/1984 311 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3130 3358 0 2857 0
10/15/1985 311 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3130 7897 815 6215 144
6/17/1986 311 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3130 0 0 0 0
8/18/1983 311 REDMOND DR TX 77840 3130 0 0 0 0