HMA Webinar (08-2-17): FY17 Mitigation Grant Application Cycle – Lessons Learned and Best Practices for Application Development – Transcript
Good afternoon and I am Sam Capasso from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance Division. I’d like to thank you all for joining the Fiscal Year 2017 Mitigation Grant Application Cycle
lessons learned and best practices for application Development webinar.
(let’s go back to the beginning slide)
We hope you find today's information valuable. Before we get going please take a minute to answer the poll questions, which you should see on the right side of your screen. This will help us get a sense of how many people are participating on the line. As we began I would like to thank the presenters for their time and volunteering to share their expertise and resources with us today. All three of the presenters have a wealth of knowledge and provide support through the Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program also known as HMTAP. They include Eric Kenney a HMTAPProject Manager, Juan Nieves HMTAP Project Engineer and Manny Perotin HMTAP Senior Project Manager.
Today we will be covering some of the background information on the National Technical Review, providing a few general project tips and giving some specific tips on common project types. We encourage you to use the chat feature for any discussion. We will have about 15 minutes at the end of the webinar to answer those questions. If you have any discussion within the chat menu please keep any information general, or use hypotheticals so as to respect any information in those potential applications. If you have any questions during the presentation please send your questions to 1-FEMA Questions via private chat and we will list all of those questions to address for about 10-15 minutes at the conclusion of the presentation. If you have not used it before, in order to send a private message hover your mouse over the 1-FEMA Questions participant and you should be able to see a pop-up that says start private chat. And then you can use the chat feature there to ask questions.
One of the most frequent questions we get is a copy of the presentation will be made available? It will be. We will distribute it through the Regional Hazard Mitigation contacts and post our presentation on the website, the HMA website. We will also be recording today's webinar and a version of the presentation will be sent through the Hazard Mitigation Assistance e-Brief. Finally, at the end of the webinar I’ll ask you to stay on to answer a few optional poll questions. We greatly appreciate any feedback it helps us better webinars in the future. So moving onto today's agenda. I'll introduce Eric Kenney to take the helm.
Thank you Sam. So as Sam mentioned, we’re going to start out with a little bit of background on the two grant programs. Last year across Flood Mitigation Assistance, FMA, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation, PDM, approximately 367 applications were received. Nearly a third of those were for structural acquisition. About 20% were for elevation. Last year we saw a large uptick in the flood risk reduction projects approximately 80 projects. Of the acquisition projects which I said made the bulk of the applications, nearly 99% of those with predetermined benefits were recommended for further consideration. Which means they passed the technical review. On the flipside, nearly 15% of the PDM applications and 5% of the FMA applications were deemed ineligible, and not reviewed by NTR. Approximately 1/3 of the PDM applications and 5% of the FMA applications either did not pass because of technical deficiencies or concerns of the BCA. So approximately 50% of PDM applications passed the NTR and nearly 90% of the FMA. The 90% number is really because that's where the bulk of the acquisition projects came in.
Again, as I mentioned we’ll start with some general questions and tips and move into the more project specific pieces of information. So, the first step, the first point is for the state priority applications, especially where there is astate set aside making sure those are complete, technically feasible and cost-effective goes a long way in getting that priority application through the review cycle. Where applicable, make sure to reference the standard design criteria,American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE-24), for elevation projects FEMA-P361 or 320 for safe room projects. And making sure that the scope of work is consistent with those criteria. If it is an elevation project and you say, yep the structure needs to be raised to an elevation less than what is required by ASCE-24, that is a discrepancy and raises a question during the review. Along with that make sure you clearly establish the level of protection for this project. And making sure that is consistent throughout the scope of work as well as the PCI. Over the last couple of years FEMA has rolled out a number of benefit-cost analysis efficiency mechanisms for acquisition, for elevation, for wind retrofit projects and of course,where appropriate, use those. If you do have to do a traditional BCA make sure to submit the zip file. The reviewers will look at that and go through point by point to make sure all the data entered are correct. Without the zip file oftentimes critical attachments are omitted. And as a reviewer there's nothing more frustrating than knowing there’s an engineering report somewhere but that it's not in the application that we can look at. Again, if you're doing a BCAand this particular case applies to an acquisition or elevation project where one or two projects, one or two structures are carrying the entire project, double and triple check the inputs. You’re going to hear there's a lot of consistency and crosschecking, but things like decimal points, a first floor elevation off by 10 feet,makes a very significant difference in the BCA. This last one is really for the reviewer's sake. If you're submitting an application under both programs it will be reviewed like any other application. If you note that, it saves time on the review. So what are we seeing over the lifecycle that was most likely to succeed. Again, complete and consistent applications. Making sure that the description and the scope of work matches the attachments as well as the BCAs. All things being equal, the application is consistent, complete, and eligible FEMA programmatic priority of course, comes into play. Where applicable, clear conformance with HMA requirements ASCE-24, again, are the FEMA standards for safe rooms.
Clearly identifying what the risk is and how the project is going to mitigate that risk for a wind retrofit ofa structural project providing the buildingevaluation, the flood risk reduction project, the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, if it’s available. Again, going toward the completeness and the consistencies, shovel ready infrastructurewhere design is completed is very easy to review and oftentimes passes the NTR. And finally, and again consistency is a thorough and reasonable cost estimate that aligns with what is in the scope of the work, matches the BCA. So onto the first of the project specific tips. For acquisition projects and again this is most common project type, nearly a third of the projects reviewed last year were acquisitions. The things that the reviewers will look for:
Acknowledgment that the property will be de-restricted per the HMA guidance;
A reasonable cost estimate that includes all of the components of an acquisition project from appraisal to any engineering, demolition, acquisition of the land and site restoration;
Documentation of the fair market value of the property, HMA guidance goes into a bit of detail on that,that’s a very important component for the acquisition project type;
And finally voluntary participation.
From a BCA standpoint, if you are using pre-calculated benefits, making sure that the building footprint is in the special flood hazard area. This is really the key technical requirement for an acquisition project. Last year there were several cases where we could not confirm that and that was terribly unfortunate. If you are doing a BCA, provide the basis for the first floor elevation, in FFE and the expected damages. Again, use this where appropriate. If the structure is in the SFHA and the acquisition price is less than $276,000, use the pre-calculated benefits it makes the application easier to put together, it makes the review easier to conduct and makes the project that much likelier to pass the NTR. On elevation projects, and I alluded to this on a couple of the previous slides, with the references to ASCE-24, making sure that whatever technical information provided shows compliance with ASCE-24. Making sure the elevation matches the minimum requirements there. Ensuring that the structure being proposed for elevation is structurally sound for that elevation project. Documenting existing base flood elevation and first floor elevation. Again a cost estimate and schedule that aligns with the scope of work and the BCA. If you're using the pre-determined benefits, again making sure it's the appropriate use of pre-determined benefits, and there is documentation of the structure is in the SFHA. Finally the pre-calculated benefits, those can be adjusted by location factors. And if that is something you are doing for your application, making sure that that is appropriately documented. I'm going to turn this over now to my co-worker, Manny Perotin, who's going to go into some of the other project types.
Good afternoon. Thank you Eric. I’m going to be covering the five additional project types starting off with flood risk reduction or what we call drainage projects. The theme across all five of these is that the importance to -- is to identify the problem and outline your technical approach for mitigating and addressing that issue. So for drainage projects, the common theme on these is that there is a lack of calculations or modeling provided, there's really no basis or engineering to support the technical effectiveness of the project.
Again, this kind of outlines things such as evaluating the channel modifications, identifying culverts and other special features, again through calculations or modeling. Overall there is also a lack of basis for the peak flow when planning and designing the infrastructure projects, in particular pumps and how those pumps will also reach the desired level of protection. One item in particular we’ve seen on several applications that were denied was a statement that said more information is needed to conduct the analysis, and evaluate the alternatives. That's typically a flag for us, when we’re trying to validate the technical effectiveness and feasibility of the project. Another flag is the limited information to support the before and after mitigation conditions. In particular downstream impacts. It’s also important to delineate and quantify the existing infrastructure that will benefit from the project. In most cases a lot of documentation is provided related to buildings, and then there is limited information provided forother infrastructure such as roads and utilities. In some circumstances we have information that is related to the infrastructure across the entire county versus the specific sub basin or watershed that the project is impacting. So it's critical all those pieces of information are documented and provided to help support the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of the project. A few other lessons learned, these have to be standalone projects in accordance with the HMA guidance. Projects that are dependent on the contingent action to be effective and/or feasible are ineligible. So an example of this is sometimes we see a watershed management plan and the application is intended to accomplish the first project in that plan. But the overall plan indicates all that needs to be accomplished in order for the drainage improvements to take effect. So it should be a clear narrative on documenting that the proposed project is a standalone project.
Finally, one other piece of information we tend to see with these is conflicting information across the application. But what we mean by here is in one part of the application it will say the project is intended to provide say 25 year level of service or 25 year level of protection. However, the engineering report indicates a 10 year. So just make sure that there is consistent information across the application. The next category I will cover is generators. This is a fairly new category as a standalone project. In the past generators had to be part of another project or say a saferoom that required a generator to be installed. In the past couple of years it has become an eligible project to standalone. A couple of lessons learned, we’ll highlight here, is first of all you need to confirm the project is an eligible facility, that is clearly identified in the policy and the guidance. It does provide some examples including hospitals, fire stations and police stations and waste and water treatment plants. And if for some reason if your facility does not fall into one of those examples that you feel is a critical facility, there should be a narrative explaining why. In terms of the load capacity. We tend to see a lot of these based on providing the entire load for the facility. There should be a determination of what that load capacity was based on. An example of this, let’s say we have a police station and maybe they are looking at making sure the communication server, the dispatch center and one outlet per office or per room are going to be served by that generator. What’s the basis for that load and then identifying the capacity, the capacity of power the generator needs to provide. One tool we've seen in a few applications provide is that there are certain manufacturers out there that have an online tool that assist with this process and identify what the demand may be on the generator and help you size and document what you anticipate the capacity of the generator needs to be. Another lesson learned we’ve seen with several of these, is if you’re in a windborne debris region you want to make sure you are considering where you are placing the generator and making sure that you have a proper enclosure for that. We don't want to fund a generator and have the generator damaged by windborne debris.
With respect to replacing an existing generator a reminder that the HMA guidance states that projects that address with an increased level of protection defer to future maintenance as an ineligible activity. So make sure you clearly state what the basis is for replacing the existing outdated generator is. In terms of methodology, we've seen quite a wide spectrum, I think the most important thing for you to provide is a basis for the recurrence interval for when you expect the before and after mitigation damages to occur. And then also identify what the loss of function impacts are that is, generally what the generators going to ensure does not occur. With respect to safe rooms, we saw quite a large amount of these last year and across the board these were fairly successful relative to some of the other project types. The key and most critical piece of information in this project type is identifying that it will meet FEMA-361 as well as ICC 500, if you're not familiar with those publications they outline the codes and standards requirements for safe rooms. Generally speaking we tend to see some level of commitment area designed for these and in a lot of cases they’re not ready for bid, not 100% but in all cases they indicate that they are going to comply with P-61 in order to be considered technically feasible. In a lot of cases we see alternatives that were identified in terms of types of construction, but ultimately the final type of construction is identified. It’s also critical that you provide key information related to the purpose of the safe rooms specifically the toll area, the usable area and the expected number of occupants. This is critical towards identifying the cost effectiveness of the product, as this is what the entire benefit cost analysis is based on. Also with respect to safe rooms is it key that you have an operations and maintenance plan. It is not necessarily required at the time of the grant application, but it does need to be included in the scope of work. So in addition to having all the various components of construction and design, ensure that this is one of the components, if it is not already developed, the Operations and Maintenance plan will be developed as part of the grant application. This should include, and be consistent with, the number of occupants and reflect the number of occupants, and hours and things of that nature that the safe room is expected to be open for.
Finally, as I’d mentioned before, making sure you have key information needed to support the benefit cost analysis, including the number of occupants expected in the usable area for those occupants. And the last bullet here related to clearly defined criteria for rebate program. We have seen some that come in for safe rooms rebate programs. Make sure you identify any criteria for those individual safe rooms.