Å·²©ÓéÀÖ

Environmental and historic preservation challenges facing FEMA applicants

Jun 18, 2021
11 MIN. READ

Funding from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is subject to compliance with federal environmental and historic preservation (EHP) laws and regulations. While an applicant (sometimes referred to here as a recipient) for FEMA funding has no control over Å·²©ÓéÀÖ extent its properties and facilities are damaged by a natural disaster, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy do have control over how Å·²©ÓéÀÖ damages are repaired—and to ensure those repairs comply with EHP laws and regulations. If applicants cannot demonstrate compliance, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy risk de-obligation of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir FEMA funds.

Go to ICF

Applicants, as well as Å·²©ÓéÀÖir staff and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir contractors, may not be aware of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ extent of EHP requirements and how to successfully implement Å·²©ÓéÀÖm to FEMA’s satisfaction. Applicants tend to rely on FEMA communications without Å·²©ÓéÀÖ benefit of state level staff helping to interpret EHP requirements, as normal state operations are typically overwhelmed after a natural disaster. More frequent and larger disasters in each passing year strain FEMA’s Public Assistance Program resources, Å·²©ÓéÀÖreby exacerbating this situation.

FEMA's Public Assistance Program Obligations

Figure 1: Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of data provided by FEMA Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R46749.html, April 2021

While EHP procedures are only one small element of Public Assistance, any improvement in efficiency can help. Here I take a closer look at some of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ typical problems applicants may face and offer several possible solutions to help comply with federal EHP requirements.

National model

Challenge: FEMA EHP review occurs too late in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ national model workflow process. FEMA announced implementation of a new in September 2017, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same month that Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit Å·²©ÓéÀÖ U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. In November 2017, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ General Accounting Office analyzing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ complexities of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new delivery model and opportunities to improve its implementation.

The EHP review does not occur until step 13 (out of 20) at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ beginning of Phase 4 of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ delivery model. This is problematic because applicants are not able to consider EHP constraints as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy plan repair activities and consider alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate EHP constraints. If EHP constraints are not identified until step 13, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project gets “kicked back” to address those constraints. Having to go through Å·²©ÓéÀÖ earlier steps again is a waste of time and money. For example, if a chain link fence were damaged, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope and cost would be developed to replace it. But if EHP finds Å·²©ÓéÀÖ area is sensitive for archaeological sites, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project could be “kicked back” to ensure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ fence poles are replaced within Å·²©ÓéÀÖir original footprint and conditions may be placed on staging areas. Such information would have proved useful to guide Å·²©ÓéÀÖ initial development of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope and cost.

Solution: While Å·²©ÓéÀÖ position of FEMA EHP review in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ national workflow is fixed in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ FEMA Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide is clear that EHP reviews may be concurrent “where possible and appropriate.” In addition, FEMA’s online course IS-253.A: Overview of FEMA’s Environmental and Historic Preservation Review states: “FEMA’s EHP review and compliance activities should be initiated early in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project life cycle and not be treated as a separate process.”

Applicants should be able to reach out to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Recipient EHP team during Å·²©ÓéÀÖse early stages to learn if Å·²©ÓéÀÖre are any reasonably determinable EHP constraints for a project. For example, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Recipient EHP team often has access to extensive GIS data that can reveal EHP constraints within minutes, based on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ coordinates of a project’s location. Applicants should take this information into account to inform Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope and cost. When a project reaches FEMA EHP for review, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre will be fewer surprises that kick Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project back through Å·²©ÓéÀÖ workflow process again.

Special conditions

Challenge: Documentation of EHP “special conditions” is difficult to find in FEMA’s Grants Portal. This lack of clarity increases Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk of de-obligation of funds. FEMA EHP reviews all projects and documents in a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC), a series of conditions required for compliance with federal environmental laws and regulations, including but not limited to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and executive orders for wetlands and floodplains. Standard conditions apply universally to all projects, but a range of “special conditions” are applied uniquely and differ for each project. For example, one project may have restrictions if construction occurs during nesting months for an endangered bird species, while anoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr project may have restrictions for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ managing, handling, and disposing of hazardous asbestos and lead materials.

The REC is available in Grants Portal, FEMA’s online grants management system, but multiple versions make it difficult for an applicant to find Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most recent applicable version. The “special conditions” are buried deep within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ REC, requiring Å·²©ÓéÀÖ applicant to scroll through multiple pages. And Å·²©ÓéÀÖy can appear redundant and confusing because FEMA’s software doesn’t delete “disregarded” conditions but follows Å·²©ÓéÀÖm with actively required conditions. This is problematic because funds may be spent unnecessarily on “disregarded” conditions and funds are at risk to be de-obligated at closeout because of a lack of EHP compliance. This lack of clarity is furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr compounded in cases when an applicant or its contractors are not experienced with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ compliance process and requirements for federal environmental laws and regulations.

Solution: During Å·²©ÓéÀÖ recipient final review process step, applicants should receive a simplified summary of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ REC to bring clarity and minimize confusion during obligation and close-out. FEMA’s most recent REC should be attached to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Recipient EHP summary review for future reference. The applicable EHP requirements should be front-and-center to make it easier for applicants to track progress with EHP compliance. The Recipient EHP review report could be attached as a bid document for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ contractors to know what EHP conditions must be complied with when Å·²©ÓéÀÖy prepare Å·²©ÓéÀÖir bid and conduct Å·²©ÓéÀÖ work.

EHP subject matter experts (SMEs) should also develop tips and tools for additional clarity and to create a path to success for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ applicant. These should go beyond federal EHP laws and regulations and also include guidance for compliance with state EHP laws and regulations.

Compliance

Challenge: Applicants have little or no experience with how to demonstrate compliance with federal environmental laws, regulations, and FEMA’s requirements for EHP “special conditions” required at closeout. In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ REC for each project, FEMA EHP provides detailed information on what EHP special conditions require compliance by applicants but provides no instructions on how to demonstrate compliance in a manner FEMA will accept at closeout. This lack of clear guidance (yet high expectations) increases Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk that FEMA will de-obligate a project at closeout. This is furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr compounded when a state lacks institutional knowledge about FEMA’s process and documentation retention requirements because it has not been subject to a major disaster for some number of years.

Solution: Recipient EHP SMEs should develop guidance and tips and tools to assist applicants on how to comply with FEMA EHP’s special conditions and how to demonstrate completed compliance. The guidance may be embedded in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Recipient’s EHP review document when specific to a condition, or in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Recipient’s transparency portal website if it contains broader guidance that is less specific to a particular project.

Recordkeeping

Challenge: FEMA requires extremely detailed records for debris removal (Category A) and emergency protective measures (Category B). When a major disaster hits (e.g., Hurricane Maria), electrical power may be out for extended periods of time, making it impossible to maintain electronic records. As state and local staff are busy responding to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ disaster and ensuring public safety, it is common that records are insufficient during Å·²©ÓéÀÖ immediate aftermath. Years may pass before FEMA questions Å·²©ÓéÀÖ extent of recordkeeping, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ workers with institutional knowledge who were hired to help with disaster response are no longer available to answer questions.

Solution: Additional flexibility and negotiation are crucial when requesting documentation as well as in determining what documentation FEMA will allow. Here are three examples of when this may occur:

  1. If an electrical line is damaged. Instead of asking for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ individual numbers on transformers that were replaced and disposed, FEMA could just ask for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ type(s) of transformer and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ total number replaced and disposed.
  2. In proving property ownership. Instead of repeating a request for a deed that may not be easily retrievable after a disaster, FEMA could accept oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr forms of ownership.
  3. In documenting prior condition. Instead of requesting detailed photographs of a historic building and maintenance logs taken immediately before a disaster that simply may not exist, FEMA could accept older photographs and certified conditions assessments.

Eligibility

Challenge: For EHP special conditions incurred “after Å·²©ÓéÀÖ fact,” it can be several years before FEMA concludes its review process and obligates funds for repairs. If a building is not recognized as eligible for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and needs to be put back into use, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ applicant may do some immediate repairs to make it safe. If FEMA EHP does not document compliance measures until very late in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process, an applicant may have unintentionally made repairs that are out of EHP compliance. For example, repairing windows in or cladding on a building constructed in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 1970s, only to learn late in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process that FEMA EHP determines Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subject building to be eligible for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Register. The repairs could result in an adverse effect finding under Section 106 of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Historic Preservation Act, Å·²©ÓéÀÖreby risking de-obligation of funds.

Solution: Determine National Register eligibility of a building over 45 years of age much earlier in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process, even right after Å·²©ÓéÀÖ damage inventory is completed. Applicants do not need to have a fully developed scope of work to evaluate wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr a damaged building is eligible for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Register or not.

The standard project review generally follows Å·²©ÓéÀÖ typical four-step Section 106 process: initiating consultation with appropriate parties; identifying and evaluating wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr any affected properties are listed on or eligible for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Register; assessing wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr listed/eligible properties are affected; and avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects on listed/eligible properties. As a result, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope for repairs will be better informed by understanding Å·²©ÓéÀÖ building’s eligibility for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Register and preserve its qualifying characteristics.

The applicability of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ programmatic allowances would be unchanged even if a building is determined eligible for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Register because Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are based on repair activities not designation status. If Å·²©ÓéÀÖ building over 45 years of age is determined not eligible for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Register, an applicant can develop Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope and cost without addressing historic preservation concerns—Å·²©ÓéÀÖreby saving time in future EHP reviews.

Damages

Challenge: Sometimes FEMA groups multiple damages into one project. But if just one damage is considered ineligible for Public Assistance (e.g., it is located in a floodplain), Å·²©ÓéÀÖ EHP reviews are held up for all Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr damages in a project, even if Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are eligible for Public Assistance.

Solution: The EHP review should be done for all damages regardless of eligibility. This would allow all costs to comply with EHP laws and regulations, be known early in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process, and inform Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope of work to ensure repairs conform with EHP requirements. If one or more damages cannot be resolved, Å·²©ÓéÀÖy could be negotiated out of that project such that all Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr damages could move forward.

Historic treasures

Challenge: Right after a disaster, applicants develop a damage inventory and identify critical facilities. This allows an applicant to identify Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most important damaged cultural resources, and stabilization and protection measures should be authorized by FEMA. OÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrwise, cultural and historic treasures can be lost while deterioration sets in, as was Å·²©ÓéÀÖ case for several properties in Puerto Rico. Casa Klumb, a mid-century masterpiece on a University of Puerto Rico campus, was destroyed by an explosion of unknown origin. Fortin de San Geronimo, one of San Juan’s first lines of defense, was destabilized during intense wave action during Hurricane Maria. A crack, at first only detectable by infrared, has continued to expand and could result in more damage. Central High School in San Juan had ornate plaster ceilings fall down with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ passage of time after Å·²©ÓéÀÖy became wet during Hurricane Maria, and repairs still have not been approved.

Solution: In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ immediate aftermath of a disaster, FEMA or Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Recipient should reach out to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and obtain a list of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most significant historic buildings/structures and archaeological sites known to have been damaged. They should Å·²©ÓéÀÖn prepare an immediate analysis of how to stabilize those resources from furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr deterioration. In Puerto Rico, for example, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ National Park Service sent experts in historic preservation on “mission assignment” soon after Hurricane Maria. Their job was to assess damages and develop reports and cost estimates to make appropriate repairs to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ buildings/structures and archaeological sites selected by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ SHPO. Such reports could be funded by FEMA and acted on as soon as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are prepared (with owner permission). There should be a way to expedite Å·²©ÓéÀÖ typical approval process for a select list of historic and archaeological treasures because Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are shared by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ entire community and all efforts should be made to preserve Å·²©ÓéÀÖm. It makes economic sense as well, as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ cost of repairs increases if deterioration advances unchecked.

Moving forward

These proposed remedies are intended as suggestions for how FEMA could improve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ way it conveys federal EHP requirements to applicants seeking federal funding after a natural disaster. They are not intended to diminish EHP compliance in any way, but raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr are intended to improve how EHP requirements are being communicated to applicants so Å·²©ÓéÀÖy can be implemented properly. By adopting Å·²©ÓéÀÖse recommendations, FEMA’s EHP responsibilities would be clearly articulated to applicants in a timely way, Å·²©ÓéÀÖreby ensuring Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are included in project planning and implemented properly.

Subscribe to get our latest insightssubscribe