Union of Concerned Scientist Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, May 16 -- Shana Udvardy, climate resilience analyst for climate and energy program, and Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for climate and energy program, at the Union of Concerned Scientist, Cambridge, Massachusetts, have issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's notice entitled "Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities". The comment was written on May 11, 2020, and posted on May 13, 2020:

* * *

On behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientist's 500,000 members and supporters, we are writing to provide comments on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Proposed Policy: Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) to establish a framework and requirements for the BRIC program as authorized under Section 1234: National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) (H. R. 4460).

The COVID-19 crisis is compounding risks for U.S. communities still contending with past extreme weather and climate-related disasters. The long-term recovery processes will likely be challenged by a string of extreme weather events starting this spring with flooding, continuing towards the end of summer when wildfire season peaks along with extreme heat and drought conditions, lasting well into the fall through the end of hurricane season. Adding to these already difficult conditions, climate change is projected to worsen many types of acute disasters--including heatwaves, flooding, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes--as well as accelerate slow-moving disasters like sea level rise, and burgeon the already record level of billion-dollar disasters. To help protect communities and build resilience, it is critical that we invest ahead of time in a proactive way, rather than just picking up the pieces after disasters strike. Done right, the BRIC program can serve as an important down payment on those efforts.

Given these unprecedented times, FEMA must design BRIC program guidance with principles and criteria that ensure "climate-smart" risk reduction measures. In addition to designing and building projects, infrastructure and planning with future climate projections in mind, climate-smart design takes advantage of opportunities to also reduce heat-trapping emissions and encourages innovative solutions to bring social, economic, health, and environmental benefits to communities./1

BRIC investments should also take a holistic view of resilience measures, including opportunities for investing in nature-based infrastructure.

The BRIC program must be implemented through a transparent, efficient and equitable process and be guided by strong principles and criteria based on the latest, forward-looking climate science./2

In addition, the COVID-19 crisis underscores even further how important it is for FEMA to target BRIC program investments to benefit those communities on the frontlines of these risks, especially low-income communities, tribal communities and communities of color./3,/4

With these opening comments in mind, below we offer specific recommendations on the BRIC program principles and criteria.

Principles

1. Support state and local governments, tribes, and territories through capability- and capacity-building to enable them to identify mitigation actions and implement projects that reduce risks posed by natural hazards.

* UCS supports this principle.

* Small communities, low-income neighborhoods, communities of color, tribal communities and historically disadvantaged populations are already being hit harder by extreme weather and disaster events/5 and those risks are now compounded by the COVID-19 crisis./6

* FEMA must specifically support local governments, tribes, and territories and target funding and technical assistance resources to the small rural communities, communities of color, tribal communities and communities with low-income and historically disadvantaged residents to support capacity-building and investments in risk reduction measures.

* FEMA should make meaningful engagement with local stakeholders a core component of its implementation of the BRIC program.

2. Encourage and enable innovation while allowing flexibility, consistency, and effectiveness.

* This principle is vague and must be better defined to speak to the type of flexibility and innovation as well as what FEMA means by consistency and effectiveness. While consistency can have many benefits, FEMA must be careful to recognize that every region in the US has unique challenges and opportunities, especially historically disadvantaged communities, communities of color and tribal communities. Climate change is also affecting every region of the US, although the specific impacts--sometimes compounding impacts--look different in different places. Flexibility should not be used as an excuse to ignore health, environmental and social safeguards. Effectiveness should be judged by scientific and equitable criteria.

* Innovation:

- Target No Adverse Impact (NAI) approaches: FEMA ought to encourage innovative risk mitigation measures that apply a NAI approach to help foster projects and mechanisms that advance non-structural, nature-based infrastructure and stricter floodplain management policies, planning and standards.

- Target adaptive management approaches: FEMA should include a specific principle for adaptive management to encourage incorporation of processes that allow for the revision of measures and change course at the start of project design to account for future climate change conditions. In addition, FEMA must encourage innovative ways to assess the full lifecycle of the project and apply systems thinking to ensure risk reduction measures are wise investments and resilient in the long term.

- Create an "innovative projects" category or set aside: Finally, FEMA should consider creating an innovate projects category or set aside, such as the current Advance Assistance in Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) grant programs, that do not require a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) or would not require a traditional BCA. FEMA could set aside certain funding level per state for grant applicants to scope out projects. FEMA's current BCA requirement will greatly limit innovative projects.

- Engage directly with local stakeholders and eligible non-profit organizations: Innovative projects can come through authentic partnerships with local stakeholders. FEMA should consider setting aside funding to encourage these kinds of projects and consider adding local 501(c)3 non-profit organizations to the list of those eligible to help implement projects.

* Effectiveness:

- Effectiveness of risk reduction measures is a crucial component of wise investments. We recommend that FEMA provide funding to communities to assess risk reduction measures' effectiveness by conducting scientific risk measurements of the damages averted. FEMA's current BCA requirements prevent innovative projects. FEMA should consider balancing the cost effectives to innovation to achieve the desired outcomes.

- Traditional metrics of effectiveness may fail to take account of climate risks that are accelerating and worsening over time and other changing future conditions. A project that may look costly today could more than pay off over the long term when taking into account climate change, and conversely a project that may look sound today could fall short in meeting future conditions.

- Traditional measures of effectiveness also fail to account for equity considerations, especially consideration of long-standing inequities that have left some communities at a significant economic disadvantage. For example, property values may be lower in some disadvantaged communities making investments in protective measures seem less valuable in traditional BCA terms. The BRIC program must include criteria that directly address these long-standing inequities instead of compounding them.

3. Promote partnerships and enable high-impact investments to reduce risk from natural hazards with a focus on critical services and facilities, large-scale public infrastructure, public safety, public health, and communities.

* BRIC funding must be utilized for pre-disaster mitigation measures and mechanisms that are either proven or likely to increase resilience and not siphoned off for large scale traditional infrastructure projects. These projects, like levees and dams, are often very costly, have their own sources of funding and can have negative consequences that could exacerbate flooding, among other impacts.

* Partnerships with the private sector that promote the triple bottom line that target social, environmental and economic impacts (or people, planet and prosperity goals), can be helpful innovation and implementation of larger sustainable risk reduction measures. However, this should not divert attention from the continued need for robust public funding for the types of projects that serve the broader public good but may not meet private market-driven criteria. Public-private partnerships should also not lead to a situation where there is less transparency, less attention to equity, or lack of availability of vital data for the general public.

* Accurate, science-informed risk mapping and risk projections are vital to help reduce risks to critical facilities, infrastructure and communities. The BRIC program should be complemented and informed by robust investments (separately funded, not through the BRIC program) in risk mapping and assessment. For example, recent news stories indicate that many of the hospitals and emergency medical centers that are helping to cope with the COVID crisis are also located in high-risk flood zones./7

While this is an unfortunate necessity in this current rapidly-unfolding crisis, it cannot continue to be the standard for disaster preparedness for our nation in the future.

4. Provide a significant opportunity to reduce future losses and minimize impacts on the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).

* BRIC investments must take into account climate change and other future conditions to maximize the opportunity to reduce future losses.

* FEMA should take account of the compounding effect of multiple disasters in the same communities and recognize that these communities will likely need even more resources today to help reduce future losses.

* FEMA must also ensure awards are made to state, local, tribal and territories that have not had a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the last seven years, and that they are still eligible for BRIC program funding in order to adhere to the intent of the DRRA to help prepare and build community resilience.

* FEMA must also put criteria in place to provide checks and balances to the entities receiving the funding awards to ensure oversight.

5. Support the adoption and enforcement of building codes, standards, and policies that will protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and have long-lasting impacts on community risk-reduction, including for critical services and facilities and for future disaster costs.

* UCS recognizes how the implementation and enforcement of building codes are both critical and cost-effective measures for reducing risks and helping to keep home and business owners safe.

This should be a core criterion of the BRIC program. We urge a holistic implementation of these codes to help advance simultaneous opportunities to cut heat-trapping emissions and build climate resilience where possible.

* FEMA should adopt a robust, science-informed flood risk management standard for all BRIC program investments.

* FEMA should broaden this principle to promote the adoption and enforcement of long-term, comprehensive science-informed planning. A comprehensive plan is the first step for a local government or jurisdiction to coordinate various program policy efforts including development and land use planning and has the benefit of staying power given the need for political buy-in./8

Additional principles will improve the BRIC Program: In addition to the comments above on FEMA's BRIC program principles, we strongly encourage FEMA to include additional grounding principles/9 to better guide how these funds are invested:

1) Inform risk reduction and adaptation measures based on the latest science and incorporate current and future climate change conditions.

* FEMA's BRIC program principles omit any mention of climate change as well as mention of FEMA's Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement./10

This is a grave disservice to communities facing growing harms from climate change and taxpayers whose money should be wisely invested to best protect the nation. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2019 "High Risk" report concluded (again) that climate change is a major threat to the public, the economy and taxpayer-backed federal programs and assets and that the government must do more to address this ever-worsening problem./11

UCS has developed a framework and a set of principles to guide climate resilience efforts that help inform FEMA's work on this front./12

2) Incorporate adaptive management measures to incorporate processes to revise and change the course at the start of project design to build resilience into lifecycle of the project./13

This requires a risk assessment of the full lifecycle of the project.

3) Apply systems thinking to ensure risk reduction measures are wise investments and resilient in the long-term.

4) Prioritize historically disadvantaged communities, tribal communities, and communities of color by conducting a needs assessment of these vulnerable communities and including these communities proactively, holistically, and transparently throughout the design and implementation of the risk reduction project or plan.

5) Apply a No Adverse Impact/14 approach that help foster and advance non-structural, nature-based infrastructure and stricter floodplain management policies, planning and standards.

6) Assess the risk of compound extreme weather and climate change related disaster impacts and community health risks (COVID-19, flooding, extreme heat, wildfires and other climate impacts).

7) Conduct interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral risk assessments to better plan for low-probability high-impact events that consider spatial and temporal physical hazards and health or other socioeconomic risk factors./15

Cascading and compound risks are part of the new normal that FEMA must help communities prepare for, including through BRIC program investments. The BRIC program should also take into account information from the National Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (National THIRA). For example, the 2019 National THIRA included scenarios for multiple simultaneous disasters including the potential for a pandemic while other hazards like hurricanes are unfolding./16

Requirements: UCS provides the following recommendations and support under the BRIC requirements section.

A. Funding:

1) Clarify that FEMA will set aside 6 percent of the Disaster Resilience Fund:

* FEMA must correct the conflicting language in line 60 to coincide with line 24: Line 60 must be changed from "FEMA may set aside" to "FEMA will set aside" to be consistent with the intent of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act. 42 USC 5133 (f)(2) which states "the President shall ensure that the amount of financial assistance made available to a State...".

* UCS strongly believes that this 6 percent set-aide is itself inadequate and too uncertain from year-to-year, given the scale of communities' needs and the worsening climate crisis. We directly call upon Congress to provide scaled-up, predictable resources to help our nation become more climate resilient and urge FEMA to do the same given the agency's unique perspective on the rising needs around the country.

* FEMA should also clarify clearly that the BRIC program is additive to, and will help complement where possible, other programs that are helping build resilience, for example the National Flood Insurance Program's Flood Mitigation Assistance program and FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. In no case should BRIC funding be used as an excuse to lower funding levels of these other equally vital programs, nor should communities be excluded from benefitting from multiple programs at the same time if need is demonstrated.

2) Improve FEMA's Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) and supplement it with other more equitable methods:

* When awarding BRIC investments, FEMA must take a holistic view of resilience measures, including opportunities for investing in nature-based infrastructure. Although FEMA updated their approach in 2019 with the release of BCA Toolkit Version 6.0, it does not go far enough to include future conditions and socioeconomic and environmental criteria in assessing the benefits of resilience investments./17

Instead, FEMA's BCA is complex and still favors engineered, market-based metrics and puts small, less resourced communities at a disadvantaged to undertake this rigorous process./18

* FEMA must supplement or replace traditional BCA metrics with criteria that explicitly account for equity considerations so that all communities have the opportunity to benefit from this program, not just those that may be wealthier or have higher value properties or infrastructure.

* UCS agrees with the BCA recommendations by FEMA's National Advisory Committee (NAC) which recommends that FEMA:

a. revise the BCA to prioritize projects based on scientific risk measurements of the damages averted./19

b. update the BCA to better account for the cost effectiveness of emergency generators, early warning systems, among other similar projects, which are only going to be more crucial during this pandemic and forecasts for extreme heat events/20 and the 2020 hurricane season projections, for example.

c. publish guidance to clarify that multiple jurisdictions are allowed to submit joint applications so that they can collaborate on BRIC projects.

3) Cost share for small and impoverished communities:

* UCS supports FEMA's inclusion of special consideration for small and impoverished communities by allowing for larger federal cost share. The COVID-19 crisis only makes this requirement even more important./21

4) Tribal Set-Aside:

* UCS strongly supports FEMA's set aside for Tribal communities and supports the findings and recommendations by FEMA's NAC regarding the small allocation of Preparedness Grant Program funding to tribal communities (only 0.4% or $10 million was allocated directly to eligible tribes) and the need to simplify award criteria and utilize a risk reduction criteria./22

5) Relocation technical assistance:

* FEMA should set aside funding for strategic planning and technical assistance for relocation, especially targeted towards historically disadvantaged, low-income, and tribal communities./23

B. Applicant and sub-applicant eligibility

* The purpose of the BRIC program as outlined in the DRRA is "To improve the provision of disaster and mitigation assistance to eligible individuals and households and to eligible State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments and certain private nonprofit organizations, and for other purposes."

* FEMA's policy must allow a portion of funds for grants to States and territories that have vulnerability to natural hazards identified in their Hazard Mitigation Plans, but have not yet experienced a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the seven years prior.

C. Use of Assistance: FEMA should provide funding to grant applicants to:

* establish, adopt and enforce building codes, standards, and policies;

* establish, adopt and enforce land use policies and planning that incorporate FEMA flood hazard data into their risk-based decision-making processes and policies;

* assess risk reduction measures effectiveness by conducting scientific risk measurements of the damages averted;

* disseminate risk reduction and resilience information; and

* collect data on substantial damage assessments./24

D. Activity and Eligibility Criteria: FEMA must include criteria that:

* Allow for addressing COVID-19 like pandemics as the crisis has broad impacts both spatially and temporally and will compound extreme weather and climate-change related impacts.

* Provide technical assistance specifically to help train staff on how to incorporate future climate change conditions into risk reduction and adaptation planning efforts.

- Technical assistance should also be geared towards helping communities draft, adopt and implement a successful risk reduction and adaptation plans. Technical assistance should be targeted for many smaller communities, tribes, those that have been repetitively impacted by extreme weather or climate-related disasters, and historically disadvantaged communities.

* Target technical assistance to historically disadvantaged communities with fewer resources.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the BRIC program. We look forward to being a resource as FEMA finalizes the BRIC program guidance.

Sincerely,

Shana Udvardy, Climate Resilience Analyst, UCS Climate & Energy Program, [email protected]

Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director and Lead Economist, UCS Climate & Energy Program, [email protected]

* * *

Footnotes:

1/ See UCS 2017 report: Built to Last: Challenges and Opportunities for Climate-Smart Infrastructure in California.

2/ See p. 27 of the National Advisory Council DRAFT Report to the FEMA Administrator, November 2019, https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1572880188002-31454e3c26dff6922fde9d34cbe19e26/November_2019_NAC_Report_Draft_v5.pdf

3/ Ibid at footnote 2.

4/ See UCS Blog: The Crisis Within the Crisis: COVID-19 Is Ravaging African Americans, https://blog.ucsusa.org/adrienne-hollis/thecrisis-within-the-crisis-covid-19-is-ravaging-african-americans

5/ See Urban Institute 2019 report: Insult to Injury: Natural Disasters and Residents' Financial Health, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/insult-injury-natural-disasters-and-residents-financial-health and See UCS blog: Maps Showing Where Most Vulnerable Are Hardest-Hit by COVID-19 in the US Point to Deepening Injustice, https://blog.ucsusa.org/juandeclet-barreto/maps-showing-where-most-vulnerable-are-hardest-hit-by-covid-19-in-the-us-point-to-deepening-injustice

6/ Ibid, at footnote 4

7/ https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062997901

8/ See Chapter 28: Reducing Risks Through Adaptation Actions, Fourth National Climate Assessment. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/28/

9/ See UCS report: Toward Climate Resilience: A Framework and Principles for Science-Based Adaptation.

10/ See FEMA Climate Change Adaptation Policy Statement, https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1919-250456267/signed_climate_change_policy_statement.pdf

11/ See GAO 2019. High-Risk Series. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697245.pdf

12/ https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/toward-climate-resilience

13/ See ASCE 2017 report: Adaptive Risk Management for Future Climate/Weather Extremes and UCS 2017 report: Built to Last: Challenges and Opportunities for Climate-Smart Infrastructure in California.

14/ https://www.floods.org/index.asp?menuID=349&firstlevelmenuID=187&siteID=1; https://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/NAI_Toolkit_2003.pdf; and https://www.floods.org/index.asp?menuid=340

15/ Phillips, C. et. al (forthcoming) "Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic" commentary accepted May 7, 2020 to Nature Climate Change.

16/ See FEMA 2019 National Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment, https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/181470

17/ See ASFPM testimony to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Pineda%20Testimony.pdf

18/ See Enterprise Community Partners' testimony to the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis https://docs.house.gov/meetings/CN/CN00/20191211/110315/HMTG-116-CN00-Wstate-MollegenMcFaddenM-20191211.pdf

19/ See the National Advisory Council DRAFT Report to the FEMA Administrator, November 2019, https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary-data/1572880188002-31454e3c26dff6922fde9d34cbe19e26/November_2019_NAC_Report_Draft_v5.pdf

20/ See UCS Blog: Hot Weather and COVID-19: Added Threats of Reopening States in Summer, https://blog.ucsusa.org/juan-decletbarreto/hot-weather-and-covid-19-added-threats-of-reopening-states-in-summer

21/ See UCS blog: Maps Showing Where Most Vulnerable Are Hardest-Hit by COVID-19 in the US Point to Deepening Injustice, https://blog.ucsusa.org/juan-declet-barreto/maps-showing-where-most-vulnerable-are-hardest-hit-by-covid-19-in-the-us-point-todeepening-injustice

22/ See the National Advisory Council DRAFT Report to the FEMA Administrator, November 2019, https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary-data/1572880188002-31454e3c26dff6922fde9d34cbe19e26/November_2019_NAC_Report_Draft_v5.pdf

23/ GAO. 2009. Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. https://www.gao.gov/assets/300/290468.pdf; and Bronen, R. and F. S. Chapin III. 2013. Adaptive governance and institutional strategies for climate-induced community relocations in Alaska. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/23/9320.full.pdf;

24/ See GAO 2020 report: National Flood Insurance Program: FEMA Can Improve Community Oversight and Data Sharing https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-20-396?fbclid=IwAR0VznDorpsV_9hIUDoVWe9XhqJ55eC9vEt2FmrVeB7D637wJBhNbZNEGDE

* * *

The notice can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FEMA-2019-0018-0001

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact MYRON STRUCK, editor, [email protected], Springfield, Virginia; 703/304-1897; https://targetednews.com