HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272711(7) 5TATt0 Washington State
Military Department
Emergency Management Division
rP Y
1889
HAZARD MITIGATION,
ANT PROCIRAM :
ADDfic n Handbook n
Guidelines
MAY 1997
Life, Property, Environment
STATE Washington State
6 Military Department
Emergency Management Division
L 1889
Gregory P. Barlow, Major General
The Adjutant General, Military Department
Linda Burton-Ramsey, Director
Emergency Management Division
Post Office 40955
Olympia Washington 98504-0955
Hazard Mid aation Grant Program:
Aaalicant Handbook and Guidelines
MAY 1997
Life, Property, Environment
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROGRAM INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III. RESPONSIBILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV. FUNDING OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
V. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Eligibility Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
State Eligibility Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VI. SOLICITATION OF APPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VII. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
VIII. PROJECT CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IX. APPLICATION PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Submission of Intention Letter to Participate to FEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Submission of Applications to the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Review, Ranking, and Selection of Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Submission of Recommended Projects to FEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Withdrawal of Recommended Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
X. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
XI. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
XII. CLOSE-OUT PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
XIII. ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
XIV. AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
XV. DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix 1, Subpart M & N, Hazard Mitigation Program, Part 206 44 CFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix 2, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Information Handout(Fact Sheet). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Appendix 3, Applicant"Letter of Intent"to the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix 4, "Step by Step"Application directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix 5, HMGP Sample Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix 6, State Level Appeal Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Appendix 7, Excerpts from P.L. 93-288, as amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix 8, FEMA's HMGP Guidance for Acquisitions & Relocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Addendum 1, Federal Register Interim Rule for Mitigation and Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Addendum 2, Sample Acquisition Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Addendum 3, Sample Voluntary Transaction Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Addendum 4, Attachments to Deeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Appendix 9, Relocation Assistance to Tenants Worksheet . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to provide you, the APPLICANT, program information on the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The HMGP is funded through Section 404 of Public
Law 93-288, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, as
amended.
The intent of the HMGP is to reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering
because of major disasters by providing substantial financial support to carry out cost-effective
hazard mitigation measures. These measures are to be identified as part of the mitigation
planning process required of state and local governments as a condition of receiving federal
disaster assistance.
To be eligible to apply for HMGP funds, applicants must be agencies of state government, local
governments (city or county), special purpose districts, Indian tribes, and certain registered
nonprofit organizations with like-government services. For all HMGP projects, the applicant
must also be participating and in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program (or
it successors) or located in a community that is.
II. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ's)
A. What is the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program?
The HMGP is a program managed by the State of Washington to administer funds from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
B. How long does it take to receive money from the HMGP?
If eligible and recommended to FEMA, the time between the application due date and receipt of
funds is four to eighteen months and is dependent upon the FEMA environmental analysis
process.
C. How does the state determine which applications to fund?
Once applications have been determined to be eligible, all applications in a disaster are given to
a five to six person committee made up of state and local officials (locals are from outside the
declared disaster area). They score the narrative section based on how well the project meets
state and federal goals as outlined in the application. Once the scores are completed and
averaged, they are ranked and funding is recommended for as many applicants as possible
working down the list. Once the committee ranks projects, they are recommended to the
Director of the Emergency Management Division. Upon approval, those applications are
forwarded to FEMA for final approval and funding.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 3
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
D. Does FEMA have a `BUY OUT"Program? How do I participate?
FEMA does not have a BUY OUT program. However, acquisition of property by the jurisdiction
is an eligible project type under the HMGP. Interested homeowners must work through an
eligible applicant.
E. How much money can we apply for or receive?
Amounts vary from disaster event to disaster event. There is a limited amount of funding made
available to the state through FEMA based upon a formula of federal disaster costs. The state
will make a determination (based on the amount of funding available, the expected number of
applications and the distribution of the applications around the declared disaster areas) on how
much funding will be made available to a jurisdiction. A recommended project is normally
eligible for 75% funding by FEMA and 12.5% funding from the State. The applicant is
responsible for the remaining costs.
F. When will we know if we will receive funding?
The state will notify you shortly after the committee process if your project is being
recommended to FEMA. However, FEMA has the final approval authority for the funding of all
projects. (FEMA will also prepare all environmental review documents on the submitted
projects.) FEMA's final approval can take anywhere between 4 and 18 months from the time of
the application due date to the state. The development of the grant agreement and obligation
of federal funds for specific projects will be completed only upon receipt by the Emergency
Management Division of formal notification of project approval from FEMA.
G. How much can we use for administrative costs?
To help defray the costs of requesting, obtaining, and administering federal assistance,
additional administrative monies are made available to the Emergency Management Division
(grantee) and Applicants (sub-grantees) per the following formula:
1. For the first $100,000 of net eligible costs, 3 percent of such costs.
2. For the next $900,000 of net eligible costs, 2 percent of such costs.
3. For the next $4,000,000 of net eligible costs, 1 percent of such costs over $1,000,000.
4. For an applicant whose net eligible costs equal $5,000,000 or more, Y2 percent of such
costs.
These costs are separate from the project costs and they should not be included in the
grant request. Additionally, these funds are by disaster, by APPLICANT, not by individual
project. Meaning, if an APPLICANT has more than one HMGP project for a particular disaster,
the Sub-grantee Administrative monies are based on the TOTAL of all the projects.
4 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
H. What is meant by "PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT"in the development and selection of the
proposed action alternatives?
The general, affected public has to have the opportunity to comment on any proposal being
submitted by the jurisdiction requesting federal funding. Preferably, they are given the
opportunity to discuss other alternatives or solutions to the problems being addressed. What
this means in the real world can vary by community and project. At a very minimum, there
should be notice in a local paper announcing the jurisdiction's intent to apply for a grant from
the state and federal governments to do your particular project. However, most successful
communities have two to three open public meetings discussing alternatives, allowing citizens
to voice their opinions and making adjustments to plans. For example, if you received funds
from the HMGP and a citizen comes along with a complaint such as, "I live five miles away and
my property was more damaged than the area you are working. Why did you not apply to fix
the area around my home?" You must be able to show that you had provided an opportunity to
comment on the proposed project.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES
A. State Government:
The Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management Division (hereafter
referred to as the DEPARTMENT) is assigned the responsibility of administering the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program as defined in this document. The DEPARTMENT will:
1. Develop and publish grant guidance, funding criteria and application forms.
2. Solicit proposals from eligible applicants.
3. Convene, as needed, the Mitigation Grant Review Committee to review,
evaluate, and recommend priority projects for funding.
4. Forward recommendations for funding to FEMA for final approval.
5. Withdraw projects from consideration if and when necessary.
6. Develop grant agreements with, and administer funds to, applicants and submit
quarterly and final reports to FEMA.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 5
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
B. Applicant:
Applicants are responsible for the identification of projects, priorities and submittal of proposals
to the state for funding consideration. Additionally, the applicant is responsible for providing
any additional information necessary to support FEMA's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) environmental analysis.
As part of the project identification process, jurisdictions should have developed a local hazard
mitigation/damage reduction plan. This plan should identify the hazards with the responsibility
of the jurisdiction and proposed solutions. The state's plan is a requirement for federal disaster
assistance, either grants or loans. (Section 409 of P.L. 93-288, as amended, is included as
Appendix 4). Those jurisdictions that have local mitigation plans that adequately address the
hazards and offer alternative solutions will receive additional priority during the application
process. Eventually, a local mitigation plan will be required to be eligible to apply for HMGP
funds.
The Chief Executive Officer of the applicant must designate an Applicant's Agent to represent
the applicant to arrange for work, monitor and evaluate work completed, and provide for all
essential documentation to the DEPARTMENT.
C. Federal Government:
The Director of FEMA Region X will review the state's recommendations for projects. FEMA
has the final approval authority for funding of all projects. FEMA will also prepare all
environmental review documents on the submitted projects.
IV. FUNDING OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
A. Federal:
The U.S. Congress revised the Stafford Act following the Midwest Floods of 1993. This revision
provided for additional HMGP funds.
For declared disasters after June 10, 1993; Mitigation program funding is based on 15 percent
of the federal expenditures under all categories of the Public Assistance program and the
Individual Assistance program, less administrative cost.
Project costs are shared on a 75 percent federal, 25 percent non-federal basis. Currently the
non-federal share is split between the state and the applicant (or 12.5 percent state, and 12.5
percent applicant). The non-federal share may vary by disaster.
The development of the grant agreement and obligation of federal funds for specific projects will
be completed only upon receipt by the DEPARTMENT of formal notification of project approval
from FEMA.
6 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
B. Applicant:
The applicant's share of the project costs may be composed of applicant-generated revenue
and private sector resources (loans, etc.). In some situations other state grant funds and
Community Development Block Grant funds can be used as part of the local match, as long as
they are not precluded so by law. Applicant contributions can also be in the form of
documented in-kind services. Volunteer labor and materials, actual in-house labor and
equipment costs, are just some of the types of in-kind services that may be considered as part
of the applicant share. However the HMGP is a grant "reimbursement" program and applicants
should have sufficient resources to begin the project.
C. State:
The state's share of the project costs is established in the federal-state agreement signed by
the Governor. Currently the state's share of project costs is one-half of the non-federal share of
the approved project costs.
Prior to the disbursement of funds, the DEPARTMENT and the Applicant will execute a grant
agreement outlining agreed upon costs, reimbursements, scope of work, and estimated
completion schedules. Grant agreements are only developed following approval and receipt of
funding documents from FEMA.
V. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
A. Federal Criteria:
In addition to federal requirements (as noted in 206.434, 44 CFR, Appendix#1) a project must:
1. Solve the problem it is intended to address;
2. Be located in a community participating and in good standing in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP);
3. Meet all applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements, and "not
contribute to or encourage development in the floodplain, wetlands, or other
hazardous areas" (Federal Executive Orders 11988, 11990 and 12898.); and
4. Be cost effective in that it:
a) Addresses a problem that has been repetitive, or a specific problem that
poses a significant risk if left unsolved.
b) Will not cost more than the anticipated value of the reduction in both
damages and subsequent negative impacts to the area if future disasters
were to occur.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 7
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
c) Has been determined to be the most practical, effective and
environmentally sound alternative after consideration of a range of
options.
d) Contributes, to the extent practical, to a permanent or long-term solution
to the problem it is intended to address.
e) Considers long-term change to the areas and entities it protects, and has
manageable future maintenance and modification requirements.
B. State Criteria:
In addition to the above criteria, a project must also support the general hazard mitigation
objectives contained in the disaster specific, statewide Hazard Damage Reduction Plan(s).
Specifically, these projects should:
1. Protect lives and reduce public risk;
2. Increase public safety through improved warning, gauging, and forecasting
systems;
3. Reduce the level of disaster vulnerability in existing structures;
4. Avoid future inappropriate development in areas vulnerable to future disasters;
5. Develop and implement comprehensive programs, standards, and regulations
that reduce disaster damage;
6. Provide a cooperative, inter-jurisdictional solution to reduce future disaster
damage;
7. Reduce the number of vulnerable structures through acquisition, relocation, or
flood proofing;
8. Address emerging hazard damage issues such as urban storm water, trees in
power right-of-ways, etc.;
9. Restore or protect natural resource, recreation, open spaces, or other
environmental values;
10. Increase public awareness of disaster hazards, preventive measures, and
emergency responses to disaster;
11. Reflect adoption of local hazard mitigation planning; and
12. Support the goals and objectives of the Growth Management Act.
VI. SOLICITATION OF APPLICATIONS
A. Following a Presidential Declaration of a major disaster in the state of Washington, the
State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) will make every effort to publicize the hazard
mitigation grant program and inform potential applicants of the availability of mitigation
grant funding. Appendix#2 is a condensed informational handout on this program.
B. Information on the program will be given during all public assistance applicant briefings.
Also, letters and information may be sent to recognized emergency management offices
within affected counties, participants in the Public Assistance program, and other
interested parties. Information will also be distributed in all mitigation training and
briefings.
8 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
C. At the discretion of the State and Federal Hazard Mitigation Officers, a joint press
release describing the program may be developed and issued. This release will contain,
at a minimum, program information, a letter of intent and application deadlines, and a.
point of contact for further information. The "Letter of Intent" must be received by the
DEPARTMENT and is a requirement for an applicant to receive an HMGP application.
VII. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
In addition to the project application process outlined above, the SHMO will identify and
encourage appropriate mitigation projects by doing the following:
A. Prior to the Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA), brief survey teams on the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program and enlist their help in identifying potential mitigation projects
and issues.
B. Brief the Public Assistance Damage Survey Report Teams that will complete detailed
inspections of damaged facilities so that they may identify broad or comprehensive
projects that impact several sites. Teams will report findings to the SHMO.
C. Review hazard mitigation team (Hazard Mitigation Survey Team or Interagency Hazard
Mitigation Team) reports from previous and current federally declared disasters to
identify potential projects for funding.
D. Review unfunded grant applications from prior declared disasters, activities, or state
priorities for possible funding.
E. Review local hazard mitigation plans from declared jurisdictions.
VIII. PROJECT CRITERIA - What Makes a Successful Project Application?
In addition to meeting the state and federal criteria on pages 7 and 8, successful HMGP project
applications should also have:
A. In depth, documented development of viable alternatives, including the no action
alternative. The project recommended must have been determined to be the most
practical, effective, and environmentally sound alternative after consideration of a
range of options. At a minimum, at least three alternatives must be fully developed and
presented.
B. Documentation of recent public involvement in the development and selection of the
alternatives. Public involvement and notice are requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Applications that do not have this documentation,
especially those that affect property owners will be ineligible. For guidance on the level
of public participation, contact HMGP staff.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 9
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
IX. APPLICATION PROCESS
Following a Presidential Disaster Declaration that provides Public Assistance or Individual
Assistance program funds to the state of Washington, the state may request Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program funds. The following process is used to request and administer the program.
A. State Submission of Letter of Intent to Participate to FEMA:
The DEPARTMENT will submit Letter of Intent to participate in the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program to FEMA within 60 days of the disaster declaration date.
B. Submission of Applications to the State:
The DEPARTMENT will solicit "Letters of Intent" (Appendix #3 - a sample letter) from applicants
normally within 45 - 60 days of the disaster declaration, or some reasonable period following a
catastrophic disaster.
Normally, upon receipt and processing of the applicant Letters of Intent, the DEPARTMENT will
send applications to the interested applicants for completion.
A date will be established by the state for the return of the completed applications (normally 120
days from the receipt of the application.) This date will be established after review of the
Letters of Intent, discussions with FEMA and the Applicants. The date should allow enough
time to ensure compliance with all environmental requirements (NEPA, SEPA, etc.),
development of alternatives, and to allow public involvement.
C. Review. Ranking and Selection of Projects:
1. Review Process:
a) The DEPARTMENT will review all applications for completeness and to
ensure they meet state and federal eligibility criteria. Applicants with
ineligible or incomplete applications will be notified. Ineligible applications
will NOT be scored.
b) If necessary, the state will appoint a Mitigation Grant Review Committee,
if one is not already established, to review and make funding
recommendations on the applications.
10 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
2. Ranking Process and Criteria:
a) If a Mitigation Grant Review Committee is deemed necessary, it will rank
all eligible projects. The Committee will use an Application Evaluation
Package to score the applications. Ranking will include consideration
based on meeting the:
i) objectives and criteria in the State Hazard Mitigation Plan;
ii) federal and state criteria as outlined earlier this document;
iii) CFR Section 206.435 (b);
iv) available funding; and
v) previous and current HMGP participation.
(1) Applicants are normally limited to four active projects at
any one time.
b) The HMGP Administrator will provide information on the projects to the
DEPARTMENT Director, in prioritized order, those grant applications
recommended for FEMA approval by the Mitigation Grant Review
Committee.
C) Applicants will be formally notified of the results of the ranking and review
process and of their recommended, or non-recommended status by The
DEPARTMENT. Applicants not being recommended for funding may
appeal this decision under specific criteria. The state level appeal
process is Appendix#6 to this document.
d) If the situation warrants, a percentage of the hazard mitigation grant
funds may be set aside to accomplish projects as outlined in the Hazard
Mitigation Plan. These projects will be exempt from the Committee
ranking process.
D. Submission of Selected Pr-jects to FEMA:
1. The SHMO will prepare a project package, for transmittal to FEMA by the
DEPARTMENT Director, containing:
a) A narrative describing the anticipated projects and justification for
recommendation and rationale for each project.
b) Copies of recommended applications and additional pertinent information.
C) A certification by the DEPARTMENT that the projects meet all federal
and state eligibility requirements.
d) A completed SF 424 (Application for Federal Assistance), which requests
funding for all projects recommended.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 11
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
2. Upon notification from FEMA of a decision on selected projects, the SHMO will
notify applicants of FEMA's decision.
a) Funded Projects
Approved and funded applicants will be provided a copy of the
Administrative Guidelines and Grant Agreement for Funded Projects.
This document will help answer contracting questions and contains
information on:
i) Reporting requirements;
ii) Process for requesting funds;
iii) Information on administrative costs; and
iv) the Grant Agreement between the state and the applicant.
b) Non-approved/Unfunded Projects
Upon notification from FEMA of projects that are not approved and not
funded, the SHMO will send a letter to applicants on non-approval and
non-funding. Specific criteria for appealing the federal decision will be
provided.
E. Withdrawal of Recommended Projects:
The state may opt to withdraw a project from consideration by FEMA. A list of possible reasons
include, but are not limited to:
1. Misrepresentation(s) by the applicant in the application;
2. Non-covered cost increases prior to FEMA approval;
3. Loss, or reduction, of committed funding;
4. Failure to maintain eligibility as described on pages 7 and 8 of this document or
as outlined in 44 CFR 206.434;
5. Lack of public participation; and
6. Major changes in the recommended project scope of work.
X. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
For informational purposes, and to help explain the HMGP process, the following information is
provided on the program administration.
A. State Administrator
1. The SHMO is responsible for project management and record keeping, including
project files which contain all correspondence, applications, vouchers, reports,
receipts, and related documentation.
2. The SHMO will oversee preparation of the state/local grant agreement outlining
the work to be done and costs.
12 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
3. Quarterly progress reports will be submitted to FEMA by the SHMO based on
the reports provided by the Applicant's Agent. A final report will also be required
from each applicant, and close-out documents will be submitted to FEMA by the
HMGP Administrator. `Note that a failure by the applicant to submit reports, may
be cause for the termination of a grant.
B. Financial Management
1. The DEPARTMENT will serve as Grantee for project financial management in
accordance with 44 CFR, Part 13. Subgrantees (APPLICANT) are accountable
to the Grantee for funds that are awarded.
2. Subgrantees are the legal entities to which the state awards money for projects.
They can be a state agency, local government, special district, private nonprofit
organization, or Indian Tribe. Subgrantees are responsible to the Grantee for
expenditures, work performed, and reporting requirements.
3. Allowable costs associated with administering the program are authorized in
accordance with Section 206.439, 44 CFR.
4. Project costs will be reimbursed on an actual cost basis up to the contract
amount. Twenty-five percent (equivalent to the state share), along with the sub-
grantee administrative funds, may be retained pending project completion and
close-out.
5. Payment will be based on subgrantee submittal of an A-19, Voucher Distribution
form and documentation of expenditures.
6. Cost overruns will normally be the responsibility of the applicant.
7. Final Payment:
a) The Applicant's Agent will submit a final A-19 Voucher Distribution and
final report to the SHMO after the project work has been completed.
b) A final inspection of the completed project will be performed by the state.
A joint State/FEMA inspection will be conducted when possible. FEMA
will notify and coordinate any additional inspections by FEMA staff prior
to the inspection. Final payments will be made upon completion of the
state's final inspection as specified in the grant agreement.
XI. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
Uniform audit requirements as set forth in 44 CFR, Part 14 apply to all grant assistance
provided under this program. FEMA may elect to conduct a federal audit on the hazard
mitigation grant or on any of the subgrants.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 13
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
XII. CLOSE-OUT PROCEDURES
A. The subgrantee will submit close-out information in the form of a final report on work
done, expenditures, and other costs.
B. The Department will send a close-out letter to the Sub-grantee after inspection.
C. A project close-out will be noted in the project files.
D. Final payment will be made.
XIII. ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT REVIEW
This document will be reviewed annually or after a Presidential Disaster Declaration to ensure
compliance with the law, implementing regulations, and state policies. It will be updated as
needed to reflect regulatory or policy changes or to improve program administration.
XIV. AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES:
A. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288,
as amended by PL 100-707, Sections 404 and 409.
B. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regulations, 44 CFR, Part 206,
Subparts M and N.
C. FEMA Regulations, 44 CFR, Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
D. Single Audit Act of 1984.
E. Chapter 38.52, Revised Code of Washington, Emergency Management.
XV. DEFINITIONS
Selected definitions are shown below. A complete list of applicable definitions is found in
206.431, Subpart N of 44 CFR Part 206. Subpart N is attached as Appendix 1.
A. "Applicant" means a state agency, local government, special district, eligible private
nonprofit organization, or Indian Tribe.
B. "Grant' means an award of financial assistance.
C. "Grantee" will mean the State of Washington.
D. "Sub-grant' means an award of financial assistance under a grant to an eligible
applicant.
14 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
E. "Sub-grantee" means the applicant, government or other legal entity to which a sub-
grant is awarded and which is accountable to the grantee for the use of the funds
provided. (This is the wording used to reference the applicant on the FEMA funding
documents)
F. "State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO)" means the individual designated as the
responsible individual for all matters related, overall, to the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program, and the Section 409 Hazard Mitigation Planning Program, Sections 404 and
409 respectively of PL 93-288, as amended.
G. "Project" means any eligible mitigation measure or action to reduce risk of future
damage, hardship, loss or suffering from disasters. The terms "project" and "measure"
are used interchangeably in the regulations.
H. "Mitigation Grant Review Committee" means the five (5) member grant application
review body at the state level.
I. "Washington State Hazard Damage Reduction Plan" means the disaster specific
document that identifies statewide hazard damage reduction goals and objectives, the
means to accomplish them, and a time frame for implementation.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1, Subpart M & N, Hazard Mitigation Program, Part 206 44 CFR
Appendix 2, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Information Handout (Fact Sheet)
Appendix 3, Applicant"Letter of Intent"to the State
Appendix 4, "Step by Step"Application directions
Appendix 5, HMGP Sample Application
Appendix 6, State Level Appeal Process
Appendix 7, Excerpts from P.L. 93-288, as amended
Appendix 8, FEMA's HMGP Guidance for Acquisitions & Relocations
Appendix 9, Relocation Assistance to Tenants Worksheet
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 15
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES
MAY 1997
(This page is purposely blank.)
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
16 MAY 1997
Code of Federal Regulations
[Title 44, Volume 11
[Revised as of October 1, 1996]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 44CFR206]
[Page 489-494]
TITLE 44--EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
CHAPTER I FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PART 206--FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS DECLARED ON OR
AFTER NOVEMBER 23, 1988--Table of Contents
Subpart M Hazard Mitigation Planning
Source: 55 FR 35529, Aug. 30, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 206.400 General.
This subpart prescribes the requirements for implementation of section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-288, as amended, hereinafter referred to as
the"Stafford Act") and prescribes Federal, State and local hazard mitigation planning responsibilities
following the declaration of a major disaster or emergency, or declaration for fire suppression assistance
pursuant to section 420 of the Stafford Act.
Sec. 206.401 Definitions.
Federal Hazard Mitigation Officer is the FEMA employee responsible for carrying out the overall
responsibilities for hazard mitigation and for this subpart, including coordinating post-disaster hazard
mitigation actions with other agencies of government at all levels.
Hazard Mitigation means any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and
property from natural hazards.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program means the program authorized under section 404 of the Stafford Act,
which may provide funding for certain mitigation measures identified through the evaluation of hazards
conducted under section 409 of the Stafford Act.
Hazard Mitigation Plan means the plan resulting from a systematic evaluation of the nature and extent of
vulnerability to the effects of natural hazards present in society and includes the actions needed to
minimize future vulnerability to hazards, as required under section 409 of the Stafford Act.
Hazard Mitigation Plan Update means an update to the existing hazard mitigation plan, which may be
accomplished either by updating the status of mitigation actions within the existing plan, or by expanding
the existing plan to address additional hazards or mitigation issues.
Hazard Mitigation Survey Team means the FEMA/State/Local survey team that is activated following
disasters to identify immediate mitigation opportunities and issues to be addressed in the section 409
hazard mitigation plan. The Hazard Mitigation Survey Team may include representatives of other Federal
agencies, as appropriate.
Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team means the mitigation team that is activated following flood related
disasters pursuant to the July 10, 1980 Office of Management and Budget directive on Nonstructural
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
MAY 1997 17
Flood Protection Measures and Flood Disaster Recovery, and the subsequent December 15, 1980
Interagency Agreement for Nonstructural Damage Reduction.
Local Hazard Mitigation Officer is the representative of local government who serves on the Hazard
Mitigation Survey Team or Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team and who is the primary point of contact
with FEMA, other Federal agencies, and the State in the planning and implementation of post-disaster
hazard mitigation activities.
Measure means any mitigation measure, project, or action proposed to reduce risk of future damage,
hardship, loss or suffering from disasters.
Natural Disaster is any natural catastrophe, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind
driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, fire, or
drought.
State Hazard Mitigation Officer is the representative of State government who is the primary point of
contact with FEMA, other Federal agencies, and local units of government in the planning and
implementation of post-disaster mitigation programs and activities required under the Stafford Act.
Sec. 206.402 Responsibilities.
(a) General. This section identifies the key responsibilities of FEMA, States, and local participants in
carrying out the requirements of section 409 of the Stafford Act.
(b) FEMA. The key responsibilities of the FEMA Regional Director are to:
(1) Oversee all FEMA-related pre-and post-disaster hazard evaluation and mitigation programs
and activities;
(2) Appoint a Federal Hazard Mitigation Officer for each disaster to manage hazard mitigation
programs and activities;
(3) Provide technical assistance to State and local governments in fulfilling mitigation
responsibilities;
(4) Conduct periodic review of State hazard mitigation activities and programs to ensure that
States are adequately prepared to meet their responsibilities under the Stafford Act;
(5) Assist the State in the identification of the appropriate mitigation actions that a State or locality
must take in order to have a measurable impact on reducing or avoiding the adverse effects
of a specific hazard or hazardous situation.
(6) Subsequent to a declaration,follow-up with State and local governments to ensure that
mitigation commitments are fulfilled, and when necessary, take action, including recovery of
funds or denial of future funds, if mitigation commitments are not fulfilled.
( c) States. The key responsibilities of the State are to coordinate all State and local responsibilities
regarding hazard evaluation and mitigation, and to;
(1) Appoint a State Hazard Mitigation Officer, who reports to the governor's authorized
representative, and who serves as the point of contact for and coordinates all matters relating
to section 409 hazard mitigation planning and implementation;
(2) Prepare and submit, in accordance with the FEMA/State Agreement and the requirements of
this subpart, a hazard mitigation plan(s) or update to existing plan(s), as required under Sec.
206.405. Such plan or update is to include an evaluation of the natural hazards in the
declared area, and an identification of appropriate actions to mitigate those hazards;
(3) Participate in the Hazard Mitigation Survey Team or Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team
activated after the declaration;
(4) Arrange for appropriate State and local participation on the Hazard Mitigation Survey Team or
Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team and in the section 409 planning process;
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
18 MAY 1997
(5) Follow-up with State agencies and local governments to assure that appropriate hazard
mitigation actions are taken. This involves coordination of plans and actions of local
governments to assure that they are not in conflict with each other or with State plans;
(6) Ensure that the activities, programs and policies of all State agencies related to hazard
evaluation, vulnerability, and mitigation are coordinated and contribute to the overall lessening
or avoiding of vulnerability to natural hazards.
(d) Local governments. The key responsibilities of local governments are to:
(1) Participate in the process of evaluating hazards and adoption of appropriate hazard mitigation
measures, including land use and construction standards;
(2) Appoint a Local Hazard Mitigation Officer, if appropriate;
(3) Participate on Hazard Mitigation Survey Teams and Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams, as
appropriate;
(4) Participate in the development and implementation of section 409 plans or plan updates, as
appropriate;
(5) Coordinate and monitor the implementation of local hazard mitigation measures.
Sec. 206.403 Pre-declaration activities.
(a) General. As part of FEMA's response to a Governor's request for a declaration, FEMA will evaluate
information concerning the status of hazard mitigation efforts in the impacted State and localities.
(b) Mitigation evaluation. The mitigation review of State and local government activities in the impacted
area shall include:
(1) The status of a statewide comprehensive hazard mitigation plans, programs, or strategies;
(2) The status of hazard mitigation plans or plan updates required as a condition of any previous
declaration;
(3) The status of any actions which the State or localities agreed to undertake as a condition of
past disaster assistance;
(4) The status of any mitigation measures funded under section 404 of the Stafford Act for any
previous declaration;
(5) The status of any other hazard evaluation and mitigation projects funded under other FEMA or
other Federal agency programs;
(6) An evaluation of the impact of the hazard(s) and any corresponding mitigation issues pertinent
to the area for which Federal disaster assistance is being requested;
(7) Any other hazard evaluation and mitigation information available and considered relevant.
(c) FEMA-State agreement. Based on the conditions warranted by the declaration, and on the findings of
the mitigation evaluation, the FEMA-State Agreement shall include appropriate mitigation provisions,
such as the requirement to prepare a hazard mitigation plan or update.
Sec. 206.404 Mitigation survey teams.
(a) Hazard mitigation surveys. Hazard mitigation surveys are performed immediately following the
declaration of a disaster to identify the following:
(1) Hazard evaluation and mitigation measures that must be incorporated into the recovery
process;
(2) Possible measures for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, or under other
disaster assistance programs;
(3) Issues for inclusion in the section 409 hazard mitigation plan.
(b) Hazard Mitigation Survey Teams. Hazard Mitigation Survey Teams shall be activated by the Regional
Director immediately following the declaration to conduct hazard mitigation surveys. The Hazard
Mitigation Survey Team shall consist of FEMA, State, and appropriate local government
representatives, and representatives of any other Federal agencies that may be appropriate. In the
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
MAY 1997 19
case of flood declarations, the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team will serve the purpose of the
Hazard Mitigation Survey Team.
(c) Survey team reports. Within 15 days following a declaration Hazard Mitigation Survey Team report
shall be prepared and distributed in accordance with FEMA policies and procedures. The Regional
Director has the authority to extend this due date when necessary.
Sec. 206.405 Hazard mitigation plan.
(a) General. In order to fulfill the requirement to evaluate natural hazards within the designated area and
to take appropriate action to mitigate such hazards the State shall prepare and implement a hazard
mitigation plan or plan update. At a minimum the plan shall contain the following:
(1) An evaluation of the natural hazards in the designated area;
(2) A description and analysis of the State and local hazard management policies, programs, and
capabilities to mitigate the hazards in the area;
(3) Hazard mitigation goals and objectives and proposed strategies, programs, and actions to
reduce or avoid long term vulnerability to hazards,
(4) A method of implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan. Such
evaluation is to occur at least on an annual basis to ensure that implementation occurs as
planned, and to ensure that the plan remains current.
(b) Plan approach. Hazard mitigation plans should be oriented toward helping States and localities to
develop hazard management capabilities and programs as part of normal governmental functions. All
States are encouraged to develop a basic mitigation plan prior to the occurrence of a disaster, so that
the basic plan can simply be expanded or updated to address specific issues arising from the disaster.
At the time of a declaration, the Regional Director, in consultation with the State, shall determine
whether a new mitigation plan is required as a result of the declaration, or whether an existing plan
can simply be updated or expanded.
(c) Plan content and format. The specific content and format of a hazard mitigation plan or plan update
shall be determined through guidance and technical assistance that the Regional Director provides to
the State during the section 409 planning process. At a minimum, the plan or update must address the
items listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) Plan submission. All States shall submit a hazard mitigation plan or plan update on behalf of the State
and any appropriate local governments included in the designated area. The plan or update is due to
FEMA within 180 days of the date of the declaration. The Regional Director may grant extensions to
this date not to exceed 365 days from the date of the declaration when adequate justification is
received in writing from the State. Extensions beyond that date must be forwarded with justification to
the Associate Director for approval.
(e) Plan approval. Upon receipt of a hazard mitigation plan or plan update, the Regional Director shall
acknowledge receipt in writing to the Governor or appropriate agency. Written comments shall state
whether the plan is approved, shall detail any shortcomings that may exist, and shall include a
suggested method and timeline for correction if necessary.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 3067-0212)
Sec. 206.406 Hazard mitigation planning process.
(a) General. A sound planning process is essential to the development and implementation of an effective
hazard mitigation plan. A critical element of successful mitigation planning is the involvement of key
State agencies, local units of government, and other public or private sector bodies or agencies that
influence hazard management or development policies within a State or local unit of government. This
section identifies principal components of the mitigation planning process.
(b) FEMA technical assistance. States may request the Regional Director to provide technical assistance
and guidance throughout the planning process to ensure that the plan or update adequately
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
20 MAY 1997
addresses mitigation concerns related to the disaster. Technical assistance may include but is not
limited to:
(1) Identification of mitigation issues through the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team or Hazard
Mitigation Survey Team report;
(2) Initial meeting with the State to identify key staff, timeline, and scope of work for development
of the hazard mitigation plan or update;
(3) Review of timelines, outlines, drafts, and other appropriate material during development of the
hazard mitigation plan or update.
(4) Provision of Federal technical assistance information and identification of technical experts, if
needed.
(c) State involvement. Though the primary responsibility for development of a hazard mitigation plan is
assigned to one State agency, any State agency that influence development within hazardous areas
through ongoing programs and activities should be involved in the development and implementation of
hazard mitigation plans. This includes, but is not limited to, agencies involved with emergency
management, natural resources, environmental regulations, planning and zoning, community
development, building regulations, infrastructure regulation or construction, public information, and
insurance. It is the responsibility of the State agency assigned lead responsibility for hazard mitigation
to ensure that all other appropriate State agencies have the opportunity to participate in development
and implementation of hazard mitigation planning.
(d) Local involvement. Local participation in hazard mitigation planning is essential because regulation
and control of development within hazardous areas normally occurs at the local level. It is the
responsibility of the State to ensure that appropriate local participation is obtained during development
and implementation of hazard mitigation planning.
(e) Private sector involvement. When appropriate, a State or local government may choose to involve the
private sector in the planning process. Support from the private sector is often essential to successful
implementation of mitigation strategies at the local level. Involvement of the private sector in the early
stages of the planning process may facilitate understanding and support for mitigation.
(f) Development of hazard mitigation goals and objectives. The participants in the planning process shall
develop the basic mitigation goals and objectives from which the proposed hazard mitigation
strategies, programs, and actions required under Sec. 206.405(3)shall be drawn.
(g) Identification of projects to be funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program, authorized under section 404 of the Stafford Act, provides up to 50 percent
Federal funding for cost-effective mitigation measures that are consistent with the evaluation of
hazards under section 409. Throughout the process of preparing a hazard mitigation plan or plan
update, the State and local governments will be evaluating natural hazards and identifying potential
mitigation measures which may be eligible for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 44
CFR part 206, subpart N sets forth the regulations for funding these mitigation measures.
(h) Coordination with other hazard evaluation and mitigation planning efforts. During the process of
developing a mitigation plan to satisfy requirements under this subpart, the State will ensure that the
planning effort is coordinated with any other hazard evaluation and mitigation planning program within
the State or local unit of government, including but not limited to the Disaster Preparedness
Improvement Grant Program, the Hurricane Program, the Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, the
Dam Safety Program, the National Flood Insurance Program, and other similar programs of FEMA
and other Federal agencies.
(i) Evaluation and monitoring. The State is responsible for monitoring and evaluating implementation of
the hazard mitigation plan and for submitting annual progress reports to FEMA. The progress report
will briefly indicate the status of implementation of the mitigation actions contained within the plan, and
will include documentation relating to measures which have been implemented, where appropriate.
The Regional Director may require the State to provide additional progress reports or more specific
information on particularly critical mitigation actions, if necessary.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
MAY 1997 21
Sec. 206.407 Minimum standards.
(a) General. As a condition of any disaster loan or grant made under the Stafford Act, section 409
requires that the recipient shall agree that any repair or construction shall be in accordance with
applicable standards of safety, decency, and sanitation, and in conformity with applicable codes,
specifications, and standards. The hazard mitigation planning process required under section 409 can
assist with the identification of inadequate standards as described below.
(b) Local standards. The cost of bringing a facility up to minimum standards is an eligible cost under
subpart H of this part when such standards apply to the types of work being performed. These
standards, including standards for hazard mitigation, can either be in place at the time of the disaster
or can be adopted prior to approval of the project. Where current mitigation standards are inadequate,
new standards may be identified in the following ways:
(1) Through the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team or Hazard Mitigation Survey Team;
(2) Through the hazard mitigation planning process;
(3) By the State or local governments;
(4) Through the public assistance program; and,
(5) Through identification of mitigation measures under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(c) Compliance. The State shall ensure that the sub-grantee meets compliance with minimum standards
as that term is used in section 409.
Code of Federal Regulations
[Title 44, Volume 1]
[Revised as of October 1, 1996]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 44 CFR 206]
[Page 494-502]
TITLE 44--EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
CHAPTER I FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PART 206--FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS DECLARED ON OR
AFTER NOVEMBER 23, 1988--Table of Contents
Subpart N Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Source: 55 FR 35537, Aug. 30, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 206.430 General.
This subpart provides guidance on the administration of hazard mitigation grants made under the
provisions of section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5170c, hereafter Stafford Act, or the Act.
[59 FIR 24356, May 11, 1994]
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
22 MAY 1997
Sec. 206.431 Definitions.
(a) Applicant means a State agency, local government, or eligible private nonprofit organization, as
defined in subpart H of this part, submitting an application to the Governor's Authorized
Representative for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(b) Application means the initial request for section 404 funding, as outlined in Sec. 206.436.
(c) Grant means an award of financial assistance. The total grant award shall not exceed ten percent of
the estimated Federal assistance provided under section 406 of the Stafford Act for major disasters
declared before June 10, 1993. For major disasters declared on or after June 10, 1993, the total grant
award shall not exceed 15 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance (excluding any
associated administrative costs) provided under sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 410, 411, 416, and 601
of the Stafford Act.
(d) Grantee means the government to which a grant is awarded and which is accountable for the use of
the funds provided. The grantee is the entire legal entity even if only a particular component of the
entity is designated in the grant award document. For purposes of this part, except as noted in Sec.
206.436(g)(1), the State is the grantee.
(e) Measure means any mitigation measure, project, or action proposed to reduce risk of future damage,
hardship, loss or suffering from disasters. The term"measure" is used interchangeably with the term
.,project" in this part.
(f) Project means any mitigation measure, project, or action proposed to reduce risk of future damage,
hardship, loss or suffering from disasters. The term"project" is used interchangeably with the term
"measure" in this part.
(g) Section 409 Hazard Mitigation Plan is the hazard mitigation plan required under section 409 of the Act
as a condition of receiving Federal disaster assistance under Public Law 93-288, as amended. This
hazard mitigation plan is the basis for the identification of measures to be funded under the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program.
(h) State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program means the plan developed by the
State to describe the procedures for administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(i) Subgrant means an award of financial assistance under a grant by a grantee to an eligible
subgrantee.
Q) Subgrantee means the government or other legal entity to which a subgrant is awarded and which is
accountable to the grantee for the use of the funds provided. Subgrantees can be a State agency,
local government, private non-profit organization, or Indian tribe as outlined in Sec. 206.434.
(k) Supplement means an amendment to the hazard mitigation application to add or modify one or more
mitigation measures.
[55 FIR 35537, Aug. 30, 1990, as amended at 59 FIR 24356, May 11, 1994]
Sec. 206.432 Federal grant assistance.
(a) General. This section describes the extent of Federal funding available under the State's grant, as well
as limitations and special procedures applicable to each.
(b) Limitations on Federal expenditures. The total of Federal assistance under section 404 shall not
exceed 15 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance (excluding any associated administrative
costs) provided under sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 410, 411, 416, and 601 of the Stafford Act. The
estimate of Federal assistance under these sections shall be based on the Regional Director's
estimate of all Damage Survey Reports, actual grants, mission assignments, and associated
expenses.
(c) Cost sharing. All mitigation measures approved under the State's grant will be subject to the cost
sharing provisions established in the FEMA-State Agreement. FEMA may contribute up to 75 percent
of the cost of measures approved for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for major
disasters declared on or after June 10, 1993. FEMA may contribute up to 50 percent of the cost of
measures approved for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for major disasters
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
MAY 1997 23
declared before June 10, 1993. The nonfederal share may exceed the Federal share. FEMA will not
contribute to costs above the Federally approved estimate.
[55 FIR 35537, Aug. 30, 1990, as amended at 59 FIR 24356, May 11, 1994]
Sec. 206.433 State responsibilities.
(a) Grantee. The State will be the Grantee to which funds are awarded and will be accountable for the
use of those funds. There may be subgrantees within the State government.
(b) Priorities. The State will determine priorities for funding. This determination must be made in
conformance with Sec. 206.435.
(c) Hazard Mitigation Officer. The State must appoint a Hazard Mitigation Officer, as required under 44
CFR part 206 subpart M, who serves as the responsible individual for all matters related to the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program.
(d) Administrative plan. The State must have an approved administrative plan for the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program in conformance with Sec. 206.437.
Sec. 206.434 Eligibility.
(a) Applicants. The following are eligible to apply for the Hazard Mitigation Program Grant:
(1) State and local governments;
(2) Private non-profit organizations or institutions that own or operate a private non-profit
facility as defined in Sec. 206.221(e);
(3) Indian tribes or authorized tribal organizations and Alaska Native villages or
organizations, but not Alaska native corporations with ownership vested in private
individuals.
(b) Minimum project criteria. To be eligible for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, a project must:
(1) Be in conformance with the hazard mitigation plan developed as a requirement of section
409;
(2) Have a beneficial impact upon the designated disaster area, whether or not located in the
designated area;
(3) Be in conformance with 44 CFR part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of
Wetlands, and 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations;
(4) 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. Projects that merely identify or
analyze hazards or problems are not eligible;
(5) Be cost-effective and substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or
suffering resulting from a major disaster. The grantee must demonstrate this by
documenting that the project;
i) Addresses a problem that has been repetitive, or a problem that poses a
significant risk to public health and safety if left unsolved,
ii) Will not cost more than the anticipated value of the reduction in both direct
damages and subsequent negative impacts to the area if future disasters were to
occur. Both costs and benefits will be computed on a net present value basis,
iii) Has been determined to be the most practical, effective, and environmentally
sound alternative after consideration of a range of options,
iv) Contributes, to the extent practicable, to a long-term solution to the problem it is
intended to address,
v) Considers long-term changes to the areas and entities it protects, and has
manageable future maintenance and modification requirements.
(c) Types of projects. Projects may be of any nature that will result in protection to public or private
property. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to:
(1) Structural hazard control or protection projects;
(2) Construction activities that will result in protection from hazards;
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
24 MAY 1997
(3) Retrofitting of facilities;
(4) Property acquisition or relocation, as defined in Sec. 206.434(d);
(5) Development of State or local mitigation standards;
(6) Development of comprehensive hazard mitigation programs with implementation as an
essential component;
(7) Development or improvement of warning systems.
(d) Property acquisition and relocation requirements. A project involving property acquisition or the
relocation of structures and individuals is eligible for assistance only if the applicant enters an
agreement with the FEMA Regional Director that provides assurances that:
(1) The following restrictive covenants shall be conveyed in the deed to any property
acquired, accepted, or from which structures are removed (hereafter called in section (d)
the property):
i) The property shall be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for uses compatible
with open space, recreational, or wetlands management practices; and
ii) No new structure(s)will be built on the property except as indicated below:
(A) A public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to a
designated open space or recreational use;
(B) A rest room; or
(C) A structure that is compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands
management usage and proper floodplain management policies and
practices,which the Director approves in writing before the construction of
the structure begins.
iii) After completion of the project, no application for additional disaster assistance
will be made for any purpose with respect to the property to any Federal entity or
source, and no Federal entity or source will provide such assistance.
(2) In general, allowable open space, recreational, and wetland management uses include
parks for outdoor recreational activities, nature reserves, cultivation, grazing, camping
(except where adequate warning time is not available to allow evacuation), temporary
storage in the open of wheeled vehicles which are easily movable (except mobile homes),
unimproved, previous parking lots, and buffer zones.
(3) Any structures built on the property according to paragraph (d)(1)of this section, shall be
floodproofed or elevated to the Base Flood Elevation plus one foot of freeboard.
(e) Inapplicability of the Uniform Relocation Act. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 does not apply to real property acquisition projects which meet the
criteria identified below:
(1) The project provides for the purchase of property damaged by the major, widespread
flooding in the States of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin during 1993;
(2) It provides for such purchase solely as a result of such flooding;
(3) It is carried out by or through a State or unit of general local government;
(4) The purchasing agency (grantee or subgrantee) notifies all potential property owners in
writing that it will not use its power of eminent domain to acquire the properties if a
voluntary agreement is not reached;
(5) The project is being assisted with amounts made available for:
i) Disaster relief by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; or
ii) By other Federal financial assistance programs.
(f) Duplication of programs. Section 404 funds cannot be used as a substitute or replacement to fund
projects or programs that are available under other Federal authorities, except under limited
circumstances in which there are extraordinary threats to lives, public health or safety or improved
property.
(g) Packaging of programs. Section 404 funds may be packaged or used in combination with other
Federal, State, local, or private funding sources when appropriate to develop a comprehensive
mitigation solution, though section 404 funds cannot be used as a match for other Federal funds.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
MAY 1997 25
[55 FR 35537,Aug. 30, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 24356, May 11, 1994]
Sec. 206.435 Project identification and selection criteria.
(a) Identification. It is the State's responsibility to identify and select hazard mitigation projects. All funded
projects must be consistent with the State's section 409 hazard mitigation plan. Hazard mitigation
projects may be identified through the section 409 planning process, or through any other appropriate
means. Procedures for the identification, funding, and management of mitigation projects shall be
included in the State's administrative plan.
(b) Selection. The State will establish procedures and priorities for the selection of mitigation measures.
At a minimum the criteria must be consistent with the criteria stated in Sec. 206.434(b)and include:
(1) Measures that best fit within an overall plan for development and/or hazard mitigation in
the community, disaster area, or State;
(2) Measures that, if not taken, will have a severe detrimental impact on the applicant, such
as potential loss of life, loss of essential services, damage to critical facilities, or economic
hardship on the community;
(3) Measures that have the greatest potential impact on reducing future disaster losses;
(c) Other considerations. In addition to the selection criteria noted above, consideration should be given
to measures that are designed to accomplish multiple objectives including damage reduction,
environmental enhancement, and economic recovery, when appropriate.
Sec. 206.436 Application procedures.
(a) General. This section describes the procedures to be used by the State in submitting an application
for funding for hazard mitigation grants. Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program the State is the
grantee and is responsible for processing subgrants to applicants in accordance with 44 CFR parts 13
and 206.
(b) Governor's Authorized Representative. The Governor's Authorized Representative serves as the
grant administrator for all funds provided under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Governor's
Authorized Representative's responsibilities as they pertain to procedures outlined in this section
include providing technical advice and assistance to eligible subgrantees, and ensuring that all
potential applicants are aware of assistance available and submission of those documents necessary
for grant award.
(c) Letter of intent to participate. Within 60 days of the disaster declaration, the State (Governor's
Authorized Representative)will notify FEMA in writing of its intent to participate or not participate in the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. States are also encouraged to submit a hazard mitigation
application within this time frame so that immediate post-disaster opportunities for hazard mitigation
are not lost.
(d) Hazard mitigation application. Upon identification of mitigation measures, the State (Governor's
Authorized Representative)will submit its section 404 Hazard Mitigation Application to the FEMA
Regional Director. The Application will identify one or more mitigation measures for which funding is
requested. The Application must include a Standard Form (SF)424, Application for Federal
Assistance, SF 424D, Assurances for Construction Programs if appropriate, and a narrative
statement. The narrative statement will contain any pertinent project management information not
included in the State's administrative plan for Hazard Mitigation. The narrative statement will also
serve to identify the specific mitigation measures for which funding is requested. Information required
for each mitigation measure shall include the following:
(1) Name of the subgrantee, if any;
(2) State or local contact for the measure;
(3) Location of the project;
(4) Description of the measure;
(5) Cost estimate for the measure;
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
26 MAY 1997
(6) Analysis of the measure's cost-effectiveness and substantial risk reduction, consistent with
Sec. 206.434(b);
(7) Work schedule;
(8) Justification for selection;
(9) Alternatives considered;
(10) Environmental information consistent with 44 CFR part 9, Floodplain Management and
Protection of Wetlands, and 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations;
(e) Supplements. The application may be amended as the State and subgrantees develop the section
409 hazard mitigation plan and continue to identify measures to be funded. Amendments to add or
modify measures are made by submitting supplements to the application. All supplements to the
application for the purpose of identifying new mitigation measures must be submitted to FEMA within
90 days of FEMA approval of the section 409 plan. The Regional Director may grant up to a 90 day
extension to this deadline upon receipt of written justification from the State that the extension is
warranted. The supplements shall contain all necessary information on the measure as described in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(f) FEMA approval. The application and supplement(s)will be submitted to the FEMA Regional Director
for approval. FEMA has final approval authority for funding of all projects.
(g) Exceptions. The following are exceptions to the above outlined procedures and time limitations.
(1) Grant applications. An Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization may submit a SF 424
directly to the Regional Director when assistance is authorized under the Act and a State is
unable to assume the responsibilities prescribed in these regulations.
(2) Time limitations. The time limitation shown in paragraph 8 of this section may be extended by
the Regional Director when justified and requested in writing by the Governor's Authorized
Representative.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 3067-0207)
Sec. 206.437 State administrative plan.
(a) General. The State shall develop a plan for the administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(b) Minimum criteria. At a minimum, the State administrative plan must include the items listed below:
(1) Designation of the State agency will have responsibility for program administration;
(2) Identification of the State Hazard Mitigation Officer responsible for all matters related to the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
(3) Determination of staffing requirements and sources of staff necessary for administration of the
program;
(4) Establishment of procedures to:
i) Identify and notify potential applicants (subgrantees) of the availability of the program;
ii) Ensure that potential applicants are provided information on the application process,
program eligibility and key deadlines;
iii) Determine applicant eligibility;
iv) Conduct environmental and floodplain management reviews;
v) Establish priorities for selection of mitigation projects;
vi) Process requests for advances of funds and reimbursement;
vii) Monitor and evaluate the progress and completion of the selected projects;
viii) Review and approve cost overruns;
ix) Process appeals;
x) Provide technical assistance as required to subgrantee(s);
xi) Comply with the administrative requirements of 44 CFR parts 13 and 206;
xii) Comply with audit requirements of 44 CFR part 14;
xiii) Provide quarterly progress reports to the Regional Director on approved projects.
(c) Format. The administrative plan is intended to be a brief but substantive plan documenting the State's
process for the administration of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and management of the section
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
MAY 1997 27
404 funds. This administrative plan should become a part of the State's overall emergency response
or operations plan as a separate annex or chapter.
(d) Approval. The State must submit the administrative plan to the Regional Director for approval.
Following each major disaster declaration, the State shall prepare any updates, amendments, or plan
revisions required to meet current policy guidance or changes in the administration of the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program. Funds shall not be awarded until the State administrative plan is approved
by the FEMA Regional Director.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control number 3067-0208)
[55 FR 35537,Aug. 30, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 52172, Dec.20, 19901
Sec. 206.438 Project management.
(a) General. The State serving as grantee has primary responsibility for project management and
accountability of funds as indicated in 44 CFR part 13. The State is responsible for ensuring that
subgrantees meet all program and administrative requirements.
(b) Cost overruns. During the execution of work on an approved mitigation measure the Governor's
Authorized Representative may find that actual project costs are exceeding the approved estimates.
Cost overruns which can be met without additional Federal funds, or which can be met by offsetting
cost under runs on other projects, need not be submitted to the Regional Director for approval, so long
as the full scope of work on all affected projects can still be met. For cost overruns which exceed
Federal obligated funds and which require additional Federal funds, the Governor's Authorized
Representative shall evaluate each cost overrun and shall submit a request with a recommendation to
the Regional Director for a determination. The applicant's justification for additional costs and other
pertinent material shall accompany the request. The Regional Director shall notify the Governor's
Authorized Representative in writing of the determination and process a supplement, if necessary. All
requests that are not justified shall be denied by the Governor's Authorized Representative. In no
case will the total amount obligated to the State exceed the funding limits set forth in Sec. 206.432(b).
Any such problems or circumstances affecting project costs shall be identified through the quarterly
progress reports required in paragraph ( c )of this section.
(c) Progress reports. The grantee shall submit a quarterly progress report to FEMA indicating the status
and completion date for each measure funded. Any problems or circumstances affecting completion
dates, scope of work, or project costs which are expected to result in noncompliance with the
approved grant conditions shall be described in the report.
(d) Payment of claims. The Governor's Authorized Representative shall make a claim to the Regional
Director for reimbursement of allowable costs for each approved measure. In submitting such claims
the Governor's Authorized Representative shall certify that reported costs were incurred in the
performance of eligible work, that the approved work was completed and that the mitigation measure
is in compliance with the provisions of the FEMA-State Agreement. The Regional Director shall
determine the eligible amount of reimbursement for each claim and approve payment. If a mitigation
measure is not completed, and there is not adequate justification for noncompletion, no Federal
funding will be provided for that measure.
(e) Audit requirements. Uniform audit requirements as set forth in 44 CFR part 14 apply to all grant
assistance provided under this subpart. FEMA may elect to conduct a Federal audit on the disaster
assistance grant or on any of the subgrants.
Sec. 206.439 Allowable costs.
(a) General. General policies for determining allowable costs are established in 44 CFR 13.22.
Exceptions to those policies as allowed in 44 CFR 13.4 and 13.6 are explained below.
(b) Eligible direct costs. The eligible direct costs for administration and management of the program are
divided into the following two categories.
(1) Statutory administrative costs
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
28 MAY 1997
i) Grantee. Pursuant to 406(f)(2)of the Stafford Act, an allowance will be provided to the
State to cover the extraordinary costs incurred by the State for preparation of
applications, quarterly reports, final audits, and related field inspections by State
employees, including overtime pay and per diem and travel expenses, but not
including regular time for such employees. The allowance will be based on the
following percentages of the total amount of assistance provided (Federal share)for
all subgrantees in the State under section 404 of the Stafford Act:
(A) For the first$100,000 of total assistance provided (Federal share), three
percent of such assistance.
(B) For the next$900,000, two percent of such assistance.
(C) For the next $4,000,000, one percent of such assistance.
(D) For assistance over$5,000,000, one-half percent of such assistance.
ii) Subgrantee. Pursuant to section 406(0(1) of the Stafford Act, necessary costs of
requesting, obtaining, and administering Federal disaster assistance subgrants will be
covered by an allowance which is based on the following percentages of total net
eligible costs under section 404 of the Stafford Act, for an individual applicant
(applicants in this context include State agencies):
(A) For the first$100,000 of net eligible costs, three percent of such costs.
(B) For the next$900,000, two percent of such costs.
(C) For the next$4,000,000, one percent of such costs.
(D) For those costs over$5,000,000, one-half percent of such costs.
(2) State management costs
i) Grantee. Except for the items listed in paragraph (b)(1)(i)of this section, other
administration costs shall be paid in accordance with 44 CFR 13.22. Costs of State
personnel (regular time salaries only) assigned to administer the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program may be eligible when approved by the Regional Director. Such costs
shall be shared in accordance with the cost share provisions of section 404 of the Act.
For grantee administrative costs in the Disaster Field Office, the State shall submit a
plan for the staffing of the Disaster Field Office within 5 days of the opening of the
office. This staffing plan shall be in accordance with the administrative plan
requirements of Sec. 206.437. After the close of the Disaster Field Office, costs of
State personnel (regular time salaries only)for continuing management of the hazard
mitigation grants may be eligible when approved in advance by the Regional Director.
The State shall submit a plan for such staffing in advance of the requirement.
(c) Eligible indirect costs
(1) Grantee. Indirect costs of administering the disaster program are eligible in accordance with
the provisions of 44 CFR part 13 and OMB Circular A-87.
(2) Subgrantee. No indirect costs of a subgrantee are separately eligible because the percentage
allowance in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section necessary costs of requesting, obtaining and
administering Federal assistance.
Sec. 206.440 Appeals.
(a) Subgrantee. The subgrantee may appeal any determination previously made related to Federal
assistance for a subgrantee. The subgrantee's appeal shall be made in writing and submitted to the
grantee within 60 days after receipt of a notice of the action which is being appealed. The appeal shall
contain documented justification supporting the subgrantee's position.
(b) Grantee. Upon receipt of an appeal from a subgrantee, the grantee shall review the material
submitted, make such additional investigations as necessary, and shall forward the appeal with a
written recommendation to the Regional Director within 60 days.
(c) Regional Director. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Regional Director shall review the material
submitted and make such additional investigations as deemed appropriate. Within 90 days following
receipt of an appeal, the Regional Director shall notify the grantee, in writing, as to the disposition of
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
MAY 1997 29
the appeal or of the need for additional information. Within 90 days following the receipt of such
additional information, the Regional Director shall notify the grantee, in writing, of the disposition of the
appeal. If the decision is to grant the appeal, the Regional Director will take appropriate implementing
action.
(d) Associate Director.
(1) If the Regional Director denies the appeal, the subgrantee may submit a second appeal to the
Associate Director. Such appeals shall be made in writing, through the grantee and the
Regional Director, and shall be submitted not later than 60 days after receipt of notice of the
Regional Director's denial of the first appeal. The Associate Director shall render a
determination on the subgrantee's appeal within 90 days following receipt of the appeal or
shall make a request for additional information. Within 90 days following the receipt of such
additional information, the Associate Director shall notify the grantee, in writing, of the
disposition of the appeal. If the decision is to grant the appeal, the Regional Director will be
instructed to take appropriate implementing action.
(2) In appeals involving highly technical issues, the Associate Director, at his/her discretion, may
ask an independent scientific or technical group or person with expertise in the subject matter
of the appeal to review the appeal in order to obtain the best possible evaluation. In such
cases, the 90 day time limit will run from the submission of the technical report.
(e) Director.
(1) If the Associate Director denies the appeal, the subgrantee may submit an appeal to the
Director of FEMA. Such appeals shall be made in writing, through the grantee and the
Regional Director, and shall be submitted not later than 60 days after receipt of notice of the
Associate Director's denial of the second appeal.
(2) The Director shall render a determination on the subgrantee's appeal within 90 days following
receipt of the appeal or shall make a request for additional information if such is necessary.
Within 90 days following the receipt of such additional information, the Director shall render a
determination and notify the grantee, in writing, of the disposition of the appeal. If the decision
is to grant the appeal, the Regional Director will be instructed to take appropriate
implementing action.
(3) In appeals involving highly technical issues, the Director may, at his/her discretion, submit the
appeal to an independent scientific or technical person or group having expertise in the
subject matter of the appeal for advice and recommendation. Before making the selection of
this person or group, the Director may consult with the grantee and/or the subgrantee.
(4) The Director may also submit appeals which he/she receives to persons who are not
associated with FEMA's Disaster Assistance Programs office for recommendations on the
resolution of appeals.
(5) Within 60 days after the submission of a recommendation made pursuant to paragraph (d) (3)
and (4) of this section, the Director shall render a determination and notify the grantee of the
disposition of the appeal.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 1
30 MAY 1997
RfE GTATf
���H oy
Fact Sheet
�IBNY F
HAZARD ZARD MITIGATION ATION GRANT PROGRAM
Washington State Military Department Emergency Management 4317 6th Avenue, Lacey WA
As a result of a Presidential declaration of a major disaster, the state of Washington will be administering and
helping to fund a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. This program is authorized by Section 404 of Public Law
93-288, as amended, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. It is one part of
the package of federal disaster assistance made available to eligible applicants in declared counties, and is
separate from the Public Assistance repair and restoration program.
PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM:
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) is a program to fund projects that will reduce the
effects of hazards and/or vulnerability to future disaster damage. Unlike the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA's) more familiar public agency disaster assistance program that
helps pay for the permanent repair and restoration of existing facilities, the HMGP goes beyond
simply fixing the damage. The HMGP will, within the limits of state and federal guidelines, help to
fund a wide range of new projects that reduce hazard vulnerability and the potential of damage.
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS:
State Government Registered Nonprofit Organizations with Like- Special Districts
Local Governments Government Services Indian Tribes
(Applicants must be jurisdictions that are participating and in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program
[NFIP]or located in a community that is.)
FUNDING CONSTRAINTS:
The grants will be made available to eligible applicants on a competitive basis and will be on the
following cost share: 75% - Federal 25% - Non federal (applicant and state split). The total amount
for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is limited. According to the law, FEMA may contribute no
more than fifteen percent of the amount that it will spend under the disaster assistance programs.
In order to select projects for funding, all proposals will be evaluated against state and federal
program criteria. Some of the general criteria are listed below.
GRANT PROCESS:
• State conducts applicant briefings in impacted communities following disaster declaration.
• "Letters of Intent" (LOI) to participate in the program are submitted by eligible applicants.
• Following review of LOI's, HMGP applications are mailed to eligible applicants. Actual
deadlines for return of applications to the state vary by disaster.
• Applications are reviewed for eligibility and site visits conducted as required. Applications are
then evaluated and scored by a work group of state and local representatives. Local
representatives are from outside the declared disaster area(s).
• Projects are then recommended to FEMA for approval and funding based upon score and
available funds.
• Upon notification of approval and funding, grant agreement between the state and applicant is
developed.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 31
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 2
MAY 1997
TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT CAN BE FUNDED:
Following are examples of projects the HMGP can be used to fund:
• Structural hazard control, such as debris basins or floodwalls;
• Retrofitting, such as flood proofing to protect structures from future damage;
• Acquisition and relocation of structures from hazard-prone areas;
• Construction activities that will result in protection from hazards; and
Generally the project should:
• Substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering from a major
disaster;
• Have a beneficial impact in the designated disaster area;
• Conform with federal floodplain, wetland, and environmental regulations;
• Solve a problem, or part of a problem when there is assurance that the whole project will
be completed;
• Be cost-effective in that it addresses a problem that is repetitive or that poses a
significant risk if left unsolved;
• Contribute substantially to the problem's long term solution;
• Provide cost-effective protection over the expected project life;
• Have manageable future maintenance requirements;
• Be determined to be the most practical, effective, and environmentally sound alternative
among he possible options;
• Have considered and can be modified to adapt to future changes in the area it protects;
• Conform to the goals of the Growth Management Act; and
• Have the documented support of the local community.
Some of the reasons that projects / applications have been determined to be ineligible:
• Project is for operation and maintenance versus disaster related mitigation.
• Project is the responsibility of another federal agency (i.e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service for levees, dikes and berms);
• Project merely identifies or analyzes the hazard (mapping, studies, plans, etc.);
• Project is the result of deferred maintenance versus natural hazard related;
• Project application fails to meet requirements under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) for public involvement in the development of the project;
• Project has an inadequate cost/benefit ratio; and
• When HMGP Project is part of a larger effort, no assurance is made that the whole
project will be completed.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
State of Washington Military Department
Emergency Management
Post Office Box 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504-0955
For further information, write us at the above address or call Martin Best, State Hazard
Mitigation Officer at (360) 923-4585.
32 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 2
MAY 1997
F STATE
0
b y
LETTER OF NT ENT
J n2
HAZARD METRGA'I ION GRAINT PROGRAM
Washington State Military Department Emergency Management 4317 6th Avenue, Lacey WA
PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATION (FEMA-XXXX-DR-WA)
SOME TYPE OF DISASTER
The purpose of this form is to establish your agency's interest in the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program and to identify projects that are a priority for your jurisdiction to reduce or eliminate
future emergency or disaster costs. This is NOT the Public Assistance (permanent repair
and restoration) program. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program does not pay for repair work.
NAME/ADDRESS OF JURISDICTION: BASIS OF ELIGIBILITY:
_State Government _Indian Tribe
_Local Government _Other
_Special Purpose District
Private Non-Profit Organization
COUNTY of JURISDICTION
CONTACT PERSON: PHONE NUMBER: ( )
PROJECT PROPOSED: Please provide the following Information:
DO N T include projects that are eligible under the Public Assistance Program for the
permanent repair and restoration of damaged public facilities.
1) Estimated Cost of Project: $
2) Description of Problem:
3) Description of Project:
4) How is this project related to a natural disaster (versus deferred maintenance)?:
5) How will this project solve your disaster related problem?
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 33
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 3
MAY 1997
3) Estimated Benefit of this project: $
(This can include previous damages, future damages mitigated, property value losses)
4) Source of Local Share: (at least 12.5% of estimated costs)
5) What is the Life of the Project?: years
Please answer the following yes/no questions to determine if your project will be eligible for
consideration for a Hazard Mitigation Grant:
Does the project:
Yes No
1) Substantially reduce the risk of future damage,
hardship, loss, or suffering from a hazard;
2) Address a problem that is repetitive or that
poses a significant risk if left unsolved;
3) Contribute substantially to a long term solution;
4) Provide cost-effective protection over the expected project life;
5) Conform with federal and state environmental regulations;
6) Have manageable future maintenance requirements;
7) Reflect the most practical, effective, and environmentally
sound solution from among all alternatives considered.
If you have answered No to any of the above questions, your project may not be eligible
for a Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Additionally, is your jurisdiction participating and in good standing in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)?
If not, your project will not be considered.
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM BY Some month 14. 199X TO:
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Washington State Military Department
Emergency Management
Post Office Box 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504-0955
This is NOT an application. You will be contacted and sent an application at a later date.
If you have any questions, please contact Martin Best at (360) 923-4585.
34 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 3
MAY 1997
Ha7LaIC J Mitigation Grant Program Application
STEP by STEP
This Step by Step worksheet will walk you through each section of the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) Application. Some sections are considered self-explanatory.
If you still have questions, please do not hesitate to call the HMGP staff at the State of
Washington Emergency Management Division 1-800-562-6108.
Section 1
• Applicant Name: The name of your jurisdiction (county, city, etc.)
• Project Title: Any name that you chose to distinguish your project. (Please try to avoid the
words "Hazard" or"Mitigation")
• Federal Tax ID #: Federal Tax ID of your jurisdiction
• Basis of Eligibility. Check only one box that identifies your form of jurisdiction.
Section 2
• Applicant Agent Information: Please enter the contact information for the person who will
be able to act as the contact person between the state of Washington on your jurisdiction.
This should be a person who is involved in the preparation of the application and can make
decisions for the applicant.
Section 3
A. Project Title: This should be the same name as that entered in section 1.
B. Project Location: Section, Township. And Address
C. Federal Congressional District and the State Legislative District. Enter the district numbers
covering the project area.
D. Project Description and Goal: Write a short paragraph describing the goals of the project
and how you intend to accomplish the goals. Remember that a goal is not "To elevate
homes" or"To repair levee". Goals should be phrased as "to protect lives" or "to protect or
remove from threat a certain facility". (As an example see "Applicant Guidelines" page 8 for
goals the state has identified in its statewide Hazard Mitigation Reduction Plan).
Section 4
• Is this site covered under or connected to a Damage Survey Report (DSR)? A DSR is a
document prepared by a joint federal, state and local team for the repair and restoration of
public facilities to pre-disaster condition. If you do not have one, check the "NO" and move
on to section 5. If you check "Yes", provide the DSR number and the reason mitigation was
not included as part of the DSR.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 35
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
Section 5
Parts A, B and C.
The narrative sections must be thoroughly completed. There are several reviewers who will
read this and many other applications; you need to paint a word picture of your situation. They
also need to know that you have thought through every conceivable option to meet your goals.
If you feel that there is only one option available, then consider what you would do if you had
the money available but could not do your first option. Also, consider if the benefits of doing
nothing might outweigh the costs associated with your project compared to the benefits gained.
Alternative Review Forms Parts A, B and C:
1. Description of the Alternative:
Proposed Action Alternative: Describe the project that you are wanting to
accomplish. Be as specific as possible, providing all components and actions and
amount of time needed to complete the project. How will it work? What does it do?
Second Alternative: Describe an alternative project. Be as specific as possible,
providing all components and actions and amount of time needed to complete the
project.
No Action Alternative: Describe what would reasonably be expected if you did nothing.
2. Total Costs of this Alternative: What is the TOTAL cost of each alternative.
3. Total Benefits of this Alternative: What is the TOTAL, quantifiable benefit of each benefit.
(In particular, what is the quantifiable benefit to the Federal Government)
4. Description of the Affected Environment: Describe the area that each alternative will
affect including; wildlife, riverain, plant life and population density. Is it developed;
undeveloped; commercial; residential; rural; forest; field; etc.?
5. Briefly describe any positive environmental impacts of the project: Describe how each
alternative will positively affect the surrounding environment.
6. Check any potential adverse impacts that apply. Check as many boxes as may apply to
that particular project
7. Is there potential for degradation of already poor environmental conditions?
Check Yes or No
8. Is there potential to violate any Federal, State, local, or tribal law or code to protect the
environment? Check Yes or No. This can include any resolution by any governing entity.
9. Briefly describe any of the areas noted in questions 6, 7, or 8. Describe the negative
impacts in more detail.
36 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
D. ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1. Acquisition and Relocation Projects only:
This section is only for those projects that involve the purchase and/or removal of homes and
structures.
a. Number of homes to be acquired and/or demolished. Include a photo of each home.
b. Number of homes to be relocated(Relocations must be outside the 100 year f/oodplain)
c. Number of homes that have renters.
d. Amount of Relocation Assistance required. Federal regulations require that under certain
conditions you may be required to provide relocation assistance to renters of homes being
acquired or relocated. Refer to the "Relocation Assistance Worksheet" (Appendix 9) for
how much will be required.
e. Determination of Duplication of Benefits (DOB). Have any of the property owners/renters
received disaster benefits from the National Flood Insurance Program or other FEMA
disaster programs?
Note: Federal funds cannot be used as a match for this program. If individuals have
received any other benefits, the amount received will be deducted from the final
appraised value of the home if no repairs have been made. If repairs have been
made, home owner must provide copies of receipts.
f. Determining Fair Market Values of Property
(1) Please provide a list of the names and addresses of potential buyout/relocation
participants. Addresses should reflect the property to be acquired, not mailing
addresses.
(2) Include a property specific list of preliminary Fair Market Values (FMV) and/or
Relocation costs.
(3) Describe how initial property values were determined. Did you use assessed values?
If so, did you consider differences between assessment and appraisal in that area of
homes? Or did you use recent appraisals?
g. Please include a platt map indicating locations of homes to be acquired/relocated.
Maps may be attached to the end of the application.
2. Review for All Types of Projects
a. HISTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Public Law 96-515, Sect. 106)
(1) Are there any archaeologically significant resources on the site?
(2) Are there any known or potential historic (over 50 years old) structures in the project
area which would be impacted by the project? Any structure over 50 years old is
potentially historic.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 37
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
(3) For any archaeologically or historically significant structure, provide the date/age of
the building and whether it has been remodeled or added onto. Also provide any
other historical knowledge of the site. Assessor's Offices should have this data.
b. Are there concentrations of minority or low income populations
in or near the project area? (Executive Order 12898) Check Yes or No.
(1) Would they be adversely impacted by this project? Check Yes or No.
C. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT& WETLAND PROTECTION
(1) Is the project located in or does it impact a flood plain? Check Yes or No.
(2) Is the project located in or does it impact a wetland? Check Yes or No.
(3) Using the 8 step Process found at the end of the application (page 27), please
indicate compliance with Executive Orders 11988 (Flood Plain Management) and
11990 (Wetland Protection) Read the check list and check Yes or No
indicating that you have gone through the process
(4) Describe any outstanding issues, of compliance with Executive Orders 11988
and 11990. Indicate if there are any problems with the procedures outlined in
the checklist.
d. Are there any toxic or hazardous substances in the project area? (Including
underground storage tanks, above ground storage tanks, septic systems or other
potential contaminants). A waiver of liability form will be required for contamination from
such tanks prior to closing. Check Yes or No.
e. Please include a platt map indicating location(s) of project area.
38 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
E. NOTIFICATION and PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public notification and involvement
in the development of alternatives and selection of the proposed action alternative.
Describe and provide documentation (notices, meeting minutes, etc.) of the recent public
involvement (within the past 12 months) in the alternative development and selection
process, especially those individuals that this project may affect. Projects that do not have
this documentation before submittal of the application will be INELIGIBLE.
Provide a description of recent public meetings with the community regarding this project,
especially with those individuals who will be directly impacted. Copies of newspaper
announcements; meeting minutes; attendee sign up sheets; etc.; can be attached to the end of
the application.
Comprehensive flood and/or disaster plans that include this project but were prepared
previously to the recent disaster event are helpful but not adequate in themselves. Property
owners have been known to change their minds.
2. Please provide documentation of any communications your agency has had with other
federal, state, local, or tribal agencies regarding the alternatives planning or impacts of this
alternative. Please provide the agency, contact person, phone number, and any other
documentation. (Attach a separate sheet if needed.) Projects that fail to communicate with
other impacted jurisdiction (i.e. tribes, counties or cities) will be INELIGIBLE.
Provide the agency, contact person and phone number of any communications you have had
regarding this project. Attach letters to the end of the application. It is especially important to
identify contact with neighboring communities that may be affected by this project.
F. AFFECT OF NON-SELECTION
If a Hazard Mitigation grant is not provided, or delayed, what impact will this have on the
timing of your project? What is the affect on your ability to use alternate funds
committed to this project?
Explain if you will continue with this project or delay it in any way if the funding is not acquired
through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Your answer will not effect the decision of
whether to fund it.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 39
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
Section 6. STATE AND FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY
A. APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE RESPONSE
****These are not meant to be true/false questions. Answer in essay form HOW your project will
achieve these goals. Each question receives a point score to evaluate it with other projects.****
Note: Not every question will apply to each project application.
1. Describe how this project will protect lives and reduce public risk. (s)(1)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "It will remove people from flood
water risks.")
2. Describe how this project will reduce the level of hazard damage vulnerability in existing
structures and developed property. (s)(t)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "It will move the existing structures
away from or above the 100 year floodplain.")
3. Describe how this project will reduce the number of vulnerable structures through
acquisition or relocation. Describe your jurisdiction's plans for the acquired property(open
space, etc.) (s)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "It will remove two structures from
the floodplain through acquisition and demolition of the structure. The area will be left as
undeveloped scenic area in perpetuity.")
4. Describe how this project will avoid inappropriate future development in areas that are
vulnerable to the hazard damage. (s)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "The county will own this
property," or "local ordinances have been developed to limit development in this area.")
5. Describe how the project will solve a problem independently, or functions as a beneficial
part of an overall solution. (f) (If part of a larger project, assurance must be provided with
the application that the overall project will be completed.)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "This project removes repetitively
damaged structures from the floodplain.")
6. Describe how this project will provide a cooperative, inter jurisdictional/inter-agency solution
to the problem. (s)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "This project has been reviewed
and is supported by the downstream communities. Letters of support and comments are
attached.")
40 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
7. Demonstrate that this project will provide a long-term mitigation solution (not a short-term
fix) in locations that experience repetitive hazard damage. (s)(t)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "This project permanently removes
structures from the floodplain." "This project will last for at least 100 years without
rebuilding.")
8. Show how this project will address emerging hazard damage issues (such as the damage
caused by storm water runoff at build-out densities, trees in right-of-ways, etc.). (s)(O
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "This project will prevent future
development in this area.")
9. Describe how this project will restore or protect natural resource, recreational, open space,
or other environmental values. (s)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "This project will remove
residential structures from the floodplain and allow the restoration of the floodplain to a
natural environment enhancing wildlife habitat.")
10. Show your jurisdiction's development and carrying out of comprehensive programs,
standards, and regulations that reduce future hazard damage. (s)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "Our jurisdiction has developed a
flood hazard reduction plan to identify and offer solutions to high risk flood hazards.")
11. Describe how your jurisdiction is increasing public awareness of hazards, preventive
measures, and emergency responses to DISASTERS. (s)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "Our jurisdiction has developed a
local flood plan and is working with the National Flood Insurance Program's Community
Rating System developing educational workshops and flood planning.")
12. Describe how the project, upon completion, will have affordable operation and maintenance
costs that the applicant jurisdiction is committed to support. (f)
Explain how this project will accomplish these goals. (i.e. "This project will require limited
maintenance for this area because the area will be left as an open space. Should the Parks
Department develop a trail system, the county will be able to provide the estimated $2,000
in annual maintenance costs.")
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 41
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
13. Describe how the proposed project improves your jurisdiction's ability to protect its critical
areas according to the Growth Management Act? (s)
Even if your community does not participate in the broad initiative of the Growth
Management Act (GMA), communities are required to identify CRITICAL AREA's within the
community. Explain how this project will accomplish or support these goals.
The following information applies to the proposed action alternative only.
SE TI N 7. PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES.
A. Estimated Total Project Costs: Detail all of the expenses (except administrative) to
complete this project.
B. Non-Applicant (Outside Sources) Project Funds.
1. Identify other funding you have applied for and the status of that application or
award(verified in writing whenever possible). If you have not applied for other
funding sources, please explain why.
What other funding have you applied for? (Public Works Trust Fund; FCAAP; CDBG; etc.)
2. Please identify any funds, other than Hazard Mitigation Grant funds, committed to the
project. We realize that applicants often fund projects in phases and that a Hazard
Mitigation Grant may fund just one phase or aspect of the project. Also, applicants often
package funds from other grant or loan programs to provide complete funding of the entire
project.
What other funding has been committed this project?
Note: HMGP funds cannot be used as a match for other federal programs and other federal
funds cannot be used as a match for HMGP funds.
C. Applicant Funding Source(s)
Please identify the source(s) of your share for the HMGP amount of the project:
Detail the sources of funding for your jurisdiction's share of the project. FEMA only contributes
75% of the costs of a project. The state of Washington will, in most disasters, contribute a
percentage of the costs.
42 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
SECTION 8 PROJECT COST-EFFECTIVENESS.
A. Cost-to-Benefit Narrative
Please discuss each of the following issues:
1. What is the project life in years? How long will it last?
2. Describe the life-cycle cost of the proposed project. [COSTS] What are the operation and
maintenance costs over the life of the project.
3. What is the value of the property that the proposed project will protect?
4. What are the specific documented damage amounts during the recent event that you can
attribute to the lack of this project?
Provide actual (verifiable) damage dollar amounts from the recent event.
5. What are the specific documented damage amounts during past events that you can
attribute to the lack of this project? (How often do they occur?)
Provide actual (verifiable) dollar damage amounts from past events and when those costs
occurred.
6. What is the dollar amount (estimated) of damage and associated costs that you would
prevent as a direct result of the proposed project over its useful life?[BENEFITS]
Provide best estimates of future dollar damage amounts that could be expected if this project is
not completed. Explain briefly how those estimates are figured.
B. Cost-To-Benefit Data: BENEFIT/COST INPUT WORKSHEET
This is data that should be the same as information given in the narrative section.
C. Frequency of damaging floods in the area protected by the project:
Give the estimated damages that can be expected in a particular flooding frequency. - every 10
years; 50 years; etc.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 43
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
SECTION 9. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION.
Give your best estimates on when each phase of the project can be completed. We have
provided our best estimate on when contracts may be signed to begin projects. (This is only an
estimate. HMGP cannot predict the time table for FEMA to approve funding of projects)
SECTION 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST.
Please check each section as appropriate. HMGP does not score this section but uses it to
identify the environmental complexities of each project and assist FEMA in the development of
the Environmental Analysis document that is required for approval of funding.
SECTION 11. CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES.
Please read and sign.
SECTION 12 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN APPLICANT'S AGENT.
The Military Department, Emergency Management Division must have an agent designated by
your jurisdiction who can sign contracts and work with this state agency on behalf of your
jurisdiction.
44 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 4
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
- �a6 STAY£Off,
O b �
��H'[Itl89 aOy�? WASHINGTON STATE
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Post Office Box 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504-0955
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FEMA-xxxx-DR-WA (Some Type of DISASTER)
The following checklist is designed to help the applicant ensure ALL portions of the application
are completed. Applicants must complete each section listed below to be considered for
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding. HMGP will not evaluate incomplete
applications. If narrative questions are answered on separate sheets, the applicant must
label these with the appropriate section and question number. Any questions may be
directed to the State Hazard Mitigation Officer at(800) 562-6108.
1. Applicant Data................................................................................
2. Applicant's Agent Information.........................................................
3. Project Description/Site Location Maps...........................................
(include sections of local plans as needed)
4. Damage Survey Report (DSR)........................................................
5. Selection of Best Alternative...........................................................
6. State and Federal Eligibility ............................................................
7. Project Budget and Funding Sources ..............................................
8. Project Cost-Effectiveness...............................................................
9. Estimated Schedule for Project Completion......................................
10. Environmental Data.........................................................................
11. Certifications and Assurances..........................................................
12. Resolution Designating the Applicant's Agent.................................
DATED MATERIALM
This application MUST be postmarked by Sometime Soon to be
considered eligible for possible funding.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997 45
SAMPLE
(This page is purposely blank.)
46 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
F STATF
b 4
S
s
WASHINGTON STATE
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
POST OFFICE BOX 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504-0955
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
GRANT APPLICATION
FEMA-xxxx-DR-WA (Some Type of Disaster)
SECTION 1. APPLICANT DATA.
Applicant Name: Sasquatch County, Washington
Project Title: Big Foot River Acquisitions & Elevations
Federal Tax ID #: 91-12345678
Basis of Applicant Eligibility:
State Government X Local Government Special Purpose District Indian Tribe
* If the applicant is an eligible private nonprofit corporation with like-government services,
please attach PROOF OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT INCORPORATION AND TAX-EXEMPT
STATUS
SECTION 2. APPLICANT'S AGENT INFORMATION.
The Applicant's Agent is the designated contact whom the applicant has authorized to apply for
and receive grant funding. For clear and direct communication, agencies may want to
make this the same person who will have project management responsibility if grant
funding is awarded. To provide continuity and ease of grant administration, the Washington
State Military Department, Emergency Management Division would like to work with a single
point of contact throughout the application, award, and reimbursement processes. A formal
designation of an Applicant's Agent may be made using the enclosed form, or by any method
normally used by your jurisdiction.
Please Type Applicant Agent's
Name: Ian Taylor, P.E.
Title: Public Works Director
Telephone: (360) 923-4586
Address: Sasquatch County Public Works
880 Shadow Valley Street
Grand Ped, Washington 98000-1234
County: Sasquatch County
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 47
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
SECTION 3. PROJECT(PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION/SITE LOCATION
MAPS.
A. Project Title: Big Foot River Acquisitions & Elevations
B. Project Location: (Legal description [Section/Township/Range]-please attach a site map)
Section 77, Township 8, Range 12 NW, 30000 - 30500 Blocks of South River Road.
C. Please provide the Federal Congressional District and the State Legislative District in
which the project is physically located:
Federal: 56th Congressional District State: 98th District
D. Project Goal and Description:To protect lives, reduce the number of vulnerable
structures, reduce damage to existing structures and to restore natural resources for
allowing flood waters through open spaces. These goals will be accomplished through
the acquisition of five homes and the elevation of five homes.
SECTION 4. DAMAGE SURVEY REPORTS.
Is this site covered under, or connected to, a Damage Survey Report (DSR) under the Repair
and Restoration Program of PL 93-288, as amended?
No Yes x DSR number 99-36995
If Yes, describe why this mitigation measure was not included as part of the DSR.
There was no viable mitigation available to protect the public utilities because of the
placement of the homes in the area.
NOTE The following narrative sections are the scored portions of the application. Please make your
NARRATIVE answers as concise, but as complete, as possible. Yes/No answers will be considered as
"Unanswered"questions While not every question will apply to each application applications that fail to
answer most questions may not receive a score high enough to receive funding.
Program Clarification
• The Federal Emergency Management Agency will no longer fund projects that are the primary
responsibility of other Federal Agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), or the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), etc.
• Projects that have been implemented or completed prior to funding approval by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency will be ineligible.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE SCORED!
SECTION 5 SELECTION OF THE BEST PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
A. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) requires a narrative discussion, of at least THREE
(3) alternatives (from no action to the most elaborate practical solution) and their impacts (beneficial and
detrimental). SEE Alternative Review Forms on pages 4, 5& 6. In the space below, describe how this
project was selected over the other possible alternatives and why it represents the best solution to the
problem. Use additional sheets if necessary.
48 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
04 b s
�H�1899 a°y HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE REVIEW FORM
Part A
PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1. Description of Alternative:
(Please include any appropriate diagrams,sketch maps,discussion on all components and actions,amount of materials and
equipment,dimensions of project,and amount of time required to complete):
The proposed project involves the voluntary acquisition and removal of five repetitively
damaged homes that all lie in the floodway along the Big Foot River in the neighborhood
known as Quagmire. Homes targeted for acquisition are those that suffer the most
frequent and severe damages, even in low flow flood events. The County will purchase
properties and structures at fair market value. We will remove the structures and two
sections of roads and manage the property as open space. We are also purchasing two
vacant properties through the FCAAP program to create a contiguous open space.
The second element of this proposal includes elevating five homes in the Quagmire
neighborhood above the 100-year flood plain. These are structures that are vulnerable to
repetitive losses from flood events that occur regularly. These homes receive low
velocity, shallow flood waters. Elevation will not require any new public long-term
maintenance costs, and would reduce federally-backed insurance claims.
2. Total Costs of this Alternative: $731,000
3. Total Benefits of this Alternative: $1,700,000
4. Description of affected environment:
The Quagmire neighborhood is in a 100-year flood plain; parts of which are in the
floodway of the Big Foot River. The Big Foot River is a designated salmon, trout and
squaw fish habitat. The region is also home to eagle and hawk species and Sasquatch
Habitat.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 49
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
Section 5: Alternative A . . . continued
5. Briefly describe any positive environmental impacts of the project. (Use a separate sheet if
needed)
The acquisition and removal of structures will create permanent, natural open spaces.
This will restore the natural, beneficial functions of the land as flood water conveyance
and storage, and as aquatic habitat. The open space could develop into new wetlands
thereby enhancing habitat of other wildlife indigenous to the area.
The elevation of homes will remove structures from significant damage and thereby
reduce pollution and contamination of the riverain environment from residential
contaminants.
6. Check any potential adverse impacts that apply.
Wetlands Water Quality Toxic or Hazardous Substances
Floodplain Health & Safety Potential for Cumulative Impacts
Rare & Endangered Fisheries Critical Areas (coastal zones,
Species wildlife refuge,wilderness, wild &
Public Controversy scenic rivers,drinking water
Historic Resources aquifers.)
Is this project using unproven
technology?
7. Is there potential for degradation of already Yes X No
poor environmental conditions?
8. Is there potential to violate any Federal, State, local, or tribal Yes X No
law or code to protect the environment?
9. Briefly describe any of the areas noted in questions 6, 7, or 8. (Please provide any
documentation.)
50 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
F SCA PF
o O >
< 2
�y�IBtl9 N°y HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE REVIEW FORM
Part B
SECOND ALTERNATIVE
1. Description of Alternative:
(Please include any appropriate diagrams,sketch maps,discussion on all components and actions,amount of materials and
equipment,dimensions of project,and amount of time required to complete):
This alternative involves the construction of a quarter of a mile long berm along the up
river reach of the neighborhood that would create a water retaining area; channel
widening and dredging on the north side of the river downstream of the levee. This
would channel water away from the neighborhood and allow more flow on the opposite
side of the river where there are no structures.
The widening and dredging would include a quarter mile of river reach and the removal
of about 600,000 cubic yards of gravel. This gravel would be used in the construction of
the berm on the opposite shore.
2. Total Costs of this Alternative: $1,200,000
3. Total Benefits of this Alternative: $1,700,000
4. Description of affected environment:(if different from proposed alternative)
The area of the widening is a small undeveloped floodplain area and a salmon spawning
area.
The area of the berm is privately owned and undeveloped property with several large
trees which act as occasional home to at least one set of eagles, though the berm
should not directly affect them.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 51
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
Section 5: Alternative B. . . continued
5. Briefly describe any positive environmental impacts of the project. (Use a separate sheet if
needed)
It would continue to prevent contaminants from entering the riparian environment by
preventing flooding in the residential area.
6. Check any potential adverse impacts that apply.
Wetlands Water Quality Toxic or Hazardous Substances
Floodplain Health & Safety X Potential for Cumulative Impacts
Rare & Endangered X Fisheries Critical Areas (coastal zones,
Species wildlife refuge,wilderness,wild&
X Public Controversy scenic rivers,drinking water
Historic Resources aquifers.)
Is this project using unproven
technology?
7. Is there potential for degradation of already X Yes No
poor environmental conditions?
8. Is there potential to violate any Federal, State, local, or tribal X Yes No
law or code to protect the environment?
9. Briefly describe any of the areas noted in questions 6, 7, or 8. (Please provide any
documentation.)
The dredging would have to be done in accordance with certain fish windows to protect
salmon. The trout should only be temporarily affected. The river would be forced into a
faster velocity in parts of the project area but not to an unusual speed for this region of
the Big Foot River. This could cause increased erosion on the north side of the river.
We are checking regulations regarding dredging.
There are some individuals who do not support dredging of the river.
52 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
f STATF
HAZARD MITIGATION GRAT�JTPROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE REVIEW FORM
Part C
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1. Description of Alternative:
(Please include any appropriate diagrams, sketch maps, discussion on all components and actions, amount of materials and
equipment, dimensions of project, and amount of time required to complete):
The No Action Alternative would allow the floods to continue to affect this neighborhood
with damages occurring to the ten residences and public utilities. Flooding in the
floodway occurs every two (2) years with damages averaging $2,000 per home per two
year event.
Five (5) year events cause an average of$5,000 per home for the ten (10) residences in
this project. All of the homes have septic systems and the neighborhood has had at least
three septic failures during flooding in the past 12 years. There have also been several
losses of household chemicals and petroleum products into the river during floods.
These two events have caused unmeasurable pollution and ecological damage to the
river. The most recent event caused an average of $20,000 in damages to residences in
this neighborhood.
Two year flood events damaging the roads, water and electrical services averages
$10,000 per event. The most recent event which was the equivalent of a 25 year event
cost $150,000 for all the utilities. The fire department also spent an estimated $2,000 in
flood rescue work in the neighborhood.
2. Total Costs of this Alternative: $ 0
3. Total Benefits of this Alternative: $ -1,700,000
4. Description of affected environment: (if different from proposed alternative)
Same.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 53
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
Section 5: Alternative C. . . continued
5. Briefly describe any positive environmental impacts of the project. (Use a separate
sheet if needed)
We do not feel that the environment will benefit in any way by this alternative.
6. Check any potential adverse impacts that apply.
Wetlands X Water Quality X Toxic or Hazardous Substances
X Floodplain X Health & Safety X Potential for Cumulative Impacts
Rare & Endangered X Fisheries X Critical Areas (coastal zones,
Species wildlife refuge, wilderness, wild&
Public Controversy scenic rivers, drinking water
Historic Resources X aquifers.)
Is this project using unproven
technology?
7. Is there potential for degradation of already X Yes No
poor environmental conditions?
8. Is there potential to violate any Federal, State, local, or tribal Yes X No
law or code to protect the environment?
9. Briefly describe any of the areas noted in questions 6, 7, or 8. (Please provide any
documentation.)
There would be continued pollution to the riparian environment during significant flood
events.
We also expect a threat to human life and safety due to residences and roads in a high
velocity floodway during flood events.
River water quality and fish habitat would continue to be threatened by residential
contaminants including septic systems and household chemicals.
54 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
Section 5.......continued
D. ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE:
1. Acquisition and Relocation Projects only:
For Projects that involve the acquisition and/or relocation of homes and structures from the floodplain, the following
information is required as part of the environmental analysis and project eligibility review. Additionally, all homes
and structures must be removed/relocated within 90 days of closing by the applicant if the grant is approved.
If a home(s)is located outside the identified 100 year flood plain, then provide documentation of the repetitive
damage to the structure, or show the migration of the river for FEMA to determine the vulnerability of the structure.
a. Number of homes to be acquired/demolished 5
Please include a photo of each home being considered for acquisition.
b. Number of homes to be relocated 0
(Homes must be relocated outside the 100 year floodplain)
C. Number of homes that have renters 1
d. Amount of Relocation Assistance Required $ 2000
(see relocation assistance worksheet in Applicant
Handbook:Appendix 9)
e. Determination of Duplication of Benefits (DOB). Have any of Yes X No
the property owners/renters received disaster benefits from the
National Flood Insurance Program or other FEMA disaster programs?
Note: Federal funds cannot be used as a match for this program. If individuals have received any other
benefits, the amount received will be deducted from the final appraised value of the home if no
repairs have been made. If repairs have been made, home owner must provide copies of receipts.
f. Determining Fair Market Values of Property
(1) Please provide a list of the names and addresses of potential buyout/relocation
participants. Addresses should reflect the flooded property not mailing addresses.
(2) Include a property specific list of preliminary Fair Market Values (FMV) and/or
Relocation costs.
NAME (in priority order) ADDRESS FMV
Charles Brown 30001 South River Road $100,000
Pete Parker 30156 South River Road $100,000
Dilbert Adams 30222 South River Road $100,000
Calvin Patterson j 30387 South River Road $100,000
George O. Jungle 130466 South River Road 1 $100,000
(3) Describe how initial property values were determined.
We took the assessed value and added 6% to determine a value. This formula is
based on an average of recent property appraisals in this area during the past
fiscal year and determined with the cooperation of the Sasquatch County Realtors
Association.
g. Please include a platt map indicating locations of homes to be acquired/relocated.
See attachment A, page 2
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 55
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
2. Review for All Types of Projects
a. HISTORIC &ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Public Law 96-515, Sect 106)
(1) Are there any archaeologically significant resources
on the site? Yes No X
(2) Are there any known or potential historic (over 50 years old)
structures in the project area which would be impacted by
the project? Yes No X
*(Please include pictures of any structure over 50 years old.)
(3) For any archaeologically or historically significant structure, provide the date/age of
the building and whether it has been remodeled or added onto. Also provide any
other historical knowledge of the site.
b. Are there concentrations of minority or low income populations
in or near the project area? (Executive Order 12898) Yes No X
(1) Would they be adversely impacted by this project? Yes No X
c. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT& WETLAND PROTECTION
(1) Is the project located in or does it impact a flood plain? Yes X No
(2) Is the project located in or does it impact a wetland? Yes No X
(3) Using the 8 step Process found at the end of the Yes X No
application (page 27), please indicate compliance with
Executive Orders 11988 (Flood Plain Management) and
11990 (Wetland Protection)
(4) Describe any outstanding issues, of compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and
11990.
There are no outstanding issues.
d. Are there any toxic or hazardous substances in the project area? Yes X No
(Including underground storage tanks, above ground storage tanks,
septic systems or other potential contaminants).
A waiver of liability form will be required for contamination from such tanks prior to closing.
There are Septic Systems that will have to be removed.
e. Please include a platt map indicating location(s) of project area.
56 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
E. NOTIFICATION and PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public notification and
involvement in the development of alternatives and selection of the proposed action alternative.
Describe and provide documentation (notices, meeting minutes, etc.) of the recent public
involvement(within the past 12 months) in the alternative development and selection process,
especially those individuals that this project may impact. Projects that do not have this
documentation before submittal of the application will be INELIGIBLE.
See attachment B for documentation
This project was identified in the Sasquatch County Flood Hazard Reduction Plan
(FHRP). The FHRP and its project recommendations went through an extensive public
involvement and review process. Sasquatch County has worked closely with the
Quagmire Neighborhood Association, the County Citizens Advisory Committee and the
Big Foot Developers Association in the development of the plan.
Since the recent disaster event, January 19XX, the county has held open public meetings
to discuss mitigation plans throughout the county. This neighborhood was identified as
a high priority by public works officials and citizens because of the threat to life and the
high costs of repairs which are passed on to all the citizens of the county. We have
enclosed announcements of meetings, attendance sheets, and samples of letters sent to
the County in response to these actions. A more detailed selection of comments is
available from the county upon request.
The meetings which prioritized the project and developed alternatives took place on the
following dates:
February 10 at Grand Ped City Hall April 22 at Toesburg City Hall
February 17 at Sasquatch County Annex; May 2 at Littleton Theater House
Furrysville May 19 at Quagmire County Park
March 7 at Toesburg City Hall May 29 at Sasquatch County
March 13 at Littleton Community Hall Commissioners Conference Meeting
April 20 at Sasquatch County Courthouse; June 20 at Sasquatch County
Grand Ped Commissioners Conference Meeting
2. Please provide documentation of any communications your agency has had with other
federal, state, local, or tribal agencies regarding the alternatives planning or impacts of
this alternative. Please provide the agency, contact person, phone number, and any
other documentation. (Attach a separate sheet if needed)
(see attachment C for copies of letters)
US Army Corps of Engineers; Seattle District, Mr. Lester Soule, (206) 764-3699
FEMA Region X Mitigation, Mr. Carl Cook, (206) 487-4682
Department of Ecology FCAAP; Dave Burdick, (206) 649-7139
U.S. Geological Survey; Mr. Chuck Swift, (206) 593-6510
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 57
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
F. AFFECT OF NON-SELECTION
If a Hazard Mitigation grant is not provided, or delayed, what impact will this have on the timing
of your project? What is the affect on your ability to use alternate funds committed to this
project?
Funds that have already been committed are not compromised by the status of the
HMGP, however completion of the proposed action could take ten years to complete and
would be dependent on the citizen approval to spend local money to complete this
project at the expense of other projects.
SECTION 6. STATE AND FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY.
FEDERAL CRITERIA - FEDERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
• Federal regulations governing the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (44 CFR Part 206
Subpart N Section 206.434 and 206.435) establish the minimum criteria that proposed
projects must meet to be eligible for grant funding.
STATE CRITERIA - STATE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The state of Washington has established the following damage reduction goals:
• Save lives and reduce public exposure to risk
• Reduce or prevent damage to public and private property
• Reduce adverse environmental or natural resource impacts
• Reduce the financial impact on public agencies and society
The questions in this section relate to specific objectives that the state and federal government
wish to accomplish through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. To determine whether your
proposal meets the minimum state and federal criteria, the state must have a clear and detailed
written response to each item below. Answer the following questions FULLY(on separate
sheets if needed) to show that this project meets minimum federal (0 and state (s) eligibility
criteria. The state cannot consider projects that do not meet the applicable criteria.
A. APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE RESPONSE
1. Describe how this project will protect lives and reduce public risk. (s)(1)
The project addresses a repetitive problem that has threatened lives of residents who
live in the floodway. Emergency rescue vehicles are unable to access five residences in
this area. By removing those homes, people will be taken out of harms way. By also
removing the septic systems from those homes, the public health for communities
downstream will not be threatened.
58 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
2. Describe how this project will reduce the level of hazard damage vulnerability in existing
structures and developed property. (s)(f)
Five homes will be removed from any vulnerability and the land turned into open space.
Five homes will be elevated one foot above the highest recorded flood level which
exceeded the 100 year flood levels. This will remove those homes from repeated flood
damage and claims to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and FEMA's
Individual Assistance Programs
3. Describe how this project will reduce the number of vulnerable structures through
acquisition or relocation. Describe your jurisdiction's plans for the acquired property
(open space, etc.) (s)
Five homes will be acquired and removed or demolished. Two sections of road will also
be abandoned thereby reducing public assistance claims to those structures. The area
will be turned into open space for flood storage. The space will also be used for nature
trails with only one restroom facility which will be above the 100 year flood mark. No
other structures will be built.
4. Describe how this project will avoid inappropriate future development in areas that are
vulnerable to the hazard damage. (s)
The floodway will become open space that will be owned by the county and it will (by
county resolution) be ineligible for any future development.
5. Describe how the project will solve a problem independently, or functions as a beneficial
part of an overall solution. (f) (If part of a larger project. Assurance must be provided
that the overall project will be completed.)
This project will remove one neighborhood that has received repetitive flood damage
and claims from any substantial future damages and it is not dependent upon other
actions.
This project also provides for flood storage capacity to mitigate erosion in the area and
slow flood waters from communities downstream, in particular Grand Ped. It also
provides for more beneficial fish and wildlife habitat.
6. Describe how this project will provide a cooperative, inter-jurisdictional/inter-agency
solution to the problem. (s)
This project is in cooperation with and supported by the State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology, FEMA, USGS and the
Association of Towns of Sasquatch County.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 59
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
Section 6 . . . continued
7. Demonstrate that this project will provide a long-term mitigation solution (not a short-
term fix) in locations that experience repetitive hazard damage. (s)(f)
The removal of structures and creation of open space will permanently remove
residences out of the floodway area. By ensuring that the remaining structures are
elevated above the 100 year flood level, the homes will not sustain significant damage in
future flood events.
8. Show how this project will address emerging hazard damage issues (such as the
damage caused by storm water runoff at build-out densities, trees in right-of-ways, etc.).
(s)(fl
The proposed action will remove a whole section of floodway from future development
and reduce the current building density in this area.
The proposed action will accommodate a larger capacity of water through the
restoration of portion of floodplain. Current flows were 120 cfs with flooding occurring
at 250 cfs. It is estimated that the removal of these structures and the creation of open
space will help reduce flow velocities in this area by almost 20%.
9. Describe how this project will restore or protect natural resource, recreational, open
space, or other environmental values. (s)
The proposed action will restore the natural functions of a floodway. It will also create a
new recreational open space that will enhance wildlife and fish habitat.
10. Show your jurisdiction's development and carrying out of comprehensive programs,
standards, and regulations that reduce future hazard damage. (s)
Sasquatch County has developed and continues to improve a Flood Hazard Reduction
Plan that identifies flood hazards and offers a variety of alternatives to mitigate, recover,
restore and prepare for flooding in the county. This project is one of the top items
identified in the plan. This project helps implement the mitigation element of the plan.
The County has also committed to increased restrictions in the development of
identified floodplain areas while providing for the rights of property owners.
11. Describe how your jurisdiction is increasing public awareness of hazards, preventive
measures, and emergency responses to DISASTERS. (s)
The county has also developed a comprehensive education program as a part of the
Community Rating System in the Flood Insurance Program. This program has increased
flood awareness issues throughout the county.
60 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
12. Describe how the project, upon completion, will have affordable operation and
maintenance costs that the applicant jurisdiction is committed to support. (f)
The county will only be responsible for the open space at a cost far less than the recent
costs of flood repair and recovery. Maintenance of the recreational area is estimated to
be less than $2,000 a year.
13. Describe how the proposed project improves your jurisdiction's ability to protect its
critical areas according to the Growth Management Act? (s)
This project will support several of the state's goals as detailed in the Growth
Management Act including:
• Protecting property right
• Encouraging the retention of open space.
• Developing recreational opportunities.
• Conserving fish and wildlife habitat.
• Protecting the environment.
The following information applies to the proposed action alternative only.
SECTION 7 PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES.
A. Estimated Total Project Costs:
Preliminary Engineering Report $5,000.00
Design Engineering (P.S.E.) $10,000.00
$500,000.00 For Itemization of each
Land / R-O-W Acquisition home, See spreadsheet attached
appraisal costs $1,000.00
demolition costs $50,000.00
closing costs $5,000.00
relocation assistance $2,000.00
legal costs $3,000.00
Sales or Use Taxes $20,000.00
Inspection/Construction $10,000.00
Construction $125,000.00
Other
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $731,000.00
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 61
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
Costs associated with administering this grant will be funded separately from project costs and
will be reimbursed as a percentage of the eligible costs as established in PL 93-288 as
amended by PL 100-707, and according to Section 206.439.44 CFR. Reimbursements for
direct costs are as follows:
For the first $100,000 of net eligible costs, 3 percent of approved costs.
For the next$900,000 of net eligible costs, 2 percent of approved costs.
For the next $4,000,000 of net eligible costs, 1 percent of approved costs.
For an applicant whose net eligible costs equal$5,000,000 or more, %percent of approved
costs.
B. Non-Applicant (Outside Sources) Project Funds
1. Identify other funding you have applied for and the status of that application or award
(verified in writing whenever possible). If you have not applied for other funding
sources, please explain why.
Washington State Department of Ecology FCAAP. $50,000 awarded for use in the current
biennium.
United States Army Corps of Engineers for a levee project in this neighborhood: rejected
due to USACE current freeze on new construction projects in this area.
2. Please identify any funds, other than Hazard Mitigation Grant funds, committed to the
project. We realize that applicants often fund projects in phases and that a Hazard
Mitigation Grant may fund just one phase or aspect of the project. Also, applicants often
package funds from other grant or loan programs to provide complete funding of the
entire project.
Sources of Funds Amount Local Match
Federal
from:
State $50,000.00 $2,000.00
from: FCAAP
Other
from:
TOTAL Non-Applicant Funds $52,000.00
If applicable, describe any constraints on the sources listed above.
62 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
C. Applicant Funding Source(s)
Please identify the source(s) of your share* for the HMGP amount of the project:
General Funds $62,000
Capital Reserves $15,000
Federal, State, or Private Loans $
Rates $
Assessments (ULIDs, LIDs, RIDs) $
Special Levies $
Other: Owners of elevated homes $16,000
Total Applicant Funds $93,000
Applicant Participation Funding Percentage 12.72%
(Divide the total applicant funds above by the total HMGP portion of the project)
r► Required Local Share is 12.5%
r► The local Share must come from a non-federal Source (with the exception of
Community Development Block Grant funds.
SECTION 8. PROJECT COST-EFFECTIVENESS.
To fund Hazard Mitigation Grant projects, the federal government requires that the project's
benefits, over the life of the project, exceed the project's costs. Life of the project, or life-cycle,
costs include the construction, operation, and maintenance costs that will occur over the life of
the project. The benefits that will occur over the life of the project include the cumulative costs
of the damage to protected property; future damages in area that the proposed action will
mitigate over the life of the project; past actual damages; value of private and public property
and resources protected; reduced maintenance costs; loss of revenue; estimates of income lost
through road closures; etc. Failure to produce any numbered amounts will result in automatic
disqualification. Please explain on a separate page if needed how you arrived at the benefits.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 63
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
A. Cost-to-Benefit Narrative
Please discuss each of the following issues:
1. What is the project life in years?
50 years
2. Describe the life-cycle cost of the proposed project. [COSTS]
We estimate spending approximately $2,000 per year to maintain nature trails in the
acquired area.
3. What is the value of the property that the proposed project will protect?
The elevations will protect structures (homes) valued at approximately $350,000.
(Excluding the value of the land)
4. What are the specific documented damage amounts during the recent event that you
can attribute to the lack of this project?
The recent event caused $200,000 in damage to public facilities and $200,000 to
individuals. Emergency response = $5,000 Flood fight expenses = $5,000
Total = $410,000
5. What are the specific documented damage amounts during past events that you can
attribute to the lack of this project? (How often do they occur?)
In the past 25 years, there has been $780,000 in damages attributed to this area.
There has been 12 events that have caused damage.
6. What is the dollar amount (estimated) of damage and associated costs that you would
prevent as a direct result of the proposed project over its useful life? [BENEFITS]
$1,580,000 over 50 years.
Avg. Costs #of homes #of times in 50 yrs. Utilities
2,000 x 5 x 25 10,000 x 25
5,000 x 10 x 10 150,000 x 2
20,000 x 10 x 2
TOTAL= $1,640,000
64 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
B. Cost-To-Benefit Data: BENEFIT/COST INPUT WORKSHEET
The following basic information is needed to run a Benefit/Cost Analysis for HMGP (404)
riparian and coastal flood projects. Fill the applicable items as not all items will apply to each
project. (For those calculating their own Benefit/Cost, FEMA generally uses a 7% discount rate.)
Total Project Cost $731,000 Annual Maintenance Costs $2,000
Project Life in Years: 50 years Past Disaster Costs: $78,0000
500 year Total Displacement Costs
Effectiveness of Project flood (e.g., rent, etc.): $2,000
Repair Costs to -
Pre-disaster Condition $410,000 Event Frequency 10 years
C. Frequency of damaging floods in the area protected by the project:
Flood Frequency (years) Estimated damages expected in the time period
(change years to fit your situation) before Mitigation
10 5 times totaling 70 000
totaling
100
500
SECTION 9 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION.
It is our desire for projects to move quickly in all phases of the grant process. Those projects
that cannot begin shortly after funding approval by FEMA may not be eligible. Estimate the
month and year when the activities listed were, or will be, completed. (This is only an estimate.
HMGP cannot predict the time table for FEMA to approve funding of projects.)
Estimated Completion Date
Grant Contract Signed March 25 1998
Preliminary Engineering Report April 1 1998
Required Permits Obtained April 1 1998
Design Engineering April 15 1998
Land R/W Acquisition May 30 1998
Prepare Bid Documents April 30 1998
Award Construction Contract May 30 1998
Begin Construction June 15,1998
Complete Construction September 30, 1998
Project in Use October 1. 1998
Total time from grant agreement signing until project completion
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 65
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
SECTION 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST.
Applicants are responsible for research and compliance with all applicable federal, state, and
local regulations, codes, and standards and for securing the necessary permits and approvals.
The State of Washington will require a CURRENT SEPA Checklist or Determination of Non-
Significance for the grant project if the project is selected for FEMA funding recommendation.
We will require a short turn around at that point, so it is to your advantage to begin the process
now.
Projects funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program must comply with all appropriate
environments regulations. This includes compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA PL 91-190, as amended), Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), and
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), EO 12898 Environmental Justice and WAC
197-11 (SEPA).
A. SEPA COMPLIANCE (WAC 197-11)
1. Will there be a Determination of Non-Significance or Claim for Categorical
Exemption for this project?
DNS: YES NO X
CE: YES X NO
2. If you have a completed Environmental Checklist or Determination of Non-
Significance, please include it as part of your application.
3. If you claim a Categorical Exemption under SEPA regulations, please cite the
sections of your SEPA procedures, or the section of WAC under which you
claim exemption.
Applicant Agency's SEPA Procedure: SMC 19.04.110 A.1
WAC: 197-11-800(1)(b)(1) and (2)(f)
4. Please describe the categorical exemption in adequate detail for evaluation:
SEPA rules allow local determination of residential construction up to 12 dwelling units.
Construction only involves 5 residential structures.
Demolition of single family residential structures is exempt.
66 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
B. HYDRAULIC CODE COMPLIANCE (RCW 75.20.100-140)
1. Is your proposed project located below the Ordinary High Water Line in the bed
of any salt or fresh water of the state?
YES X NO
2. If your answer is YES, you are responsible for contacting the Department of Fish
and Wildlife to find out whether they will require a Hydraulic Project Approval for
your proposed work. We will require proof of application before grant funding
can be advanced.
C. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE (RCW 90.58)
1. Is your proposed project located within the boundaries of the Shoreline
Management Act (Including but not limited to: 200 feet of: any marine shoreline
or associated wetland; the banks or associated wetlands of any stream with a
flow of 20 cubic feet per second or greater; or the shoreline or associated
wetland of any lake 20 acres in size or larger in any of the 15 counties west of
the crest of the Cascade Mountain range)?
YES X NO
2. If you answered YES and your proposal is selected, you will need to apply for a
Shoreline Permit from the appropriate unit of government and submit a copy of
the permit, or exemption, before release of any funding.
D. WETLANDS DISCLOSURE (Governor's Executive Order 90-04)
1. Is there a wetland, as defined by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the
Clean Water Act, on the site or within the immediate vicinity?
YES X NO
2. If you answer YES to the above question, we will require that you comply with
the Governor's Executive Order 90-04. This may include the preparation and
Department of Ecology's approval of a WETLANDS COMPENSATORY
MITIGATION PLAN. If applicable, the Department of Ecology must approve the
plan before we approve HMGP funds. Please indicate what actions, if
appropriate, you are taking concerning wetlands.
The proposed action will remove residential structures and septic systems from portions
of the wetland buffer. We anticipate a net beneficial impact to the wetland.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 67
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
E. FLOODPLAIN DISCLOSURE (RCW 86-16)
1. Is your proposed project in a floodplain designated on a FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Map?
YES X NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the following:
FEMA Flood Insurance Panel Number: 65077AO924L revised June 30, 1990
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone Designation: A
3. Is your jurisdiction a participant in good standing in the National Flood Insurance
Program?
YES X NO
F. PUGET SOUND BASIN DISCLOSURE (RCW 90.70)
1. Is your proposed project in, or part of, a drainage basin that drains into Puget
Sound (identified in RCW 90.70.005 as all salt waters east of Port Angeles and
south of the international boundary line)?
YES NO X
2. If you answer YES, please identify the basin and sub-basin.
G. CRITICAL AREAS DISCLOSURE (RCW 36.70A)
The Growth Management Act requires all cities and counties in the state to designate critical
areas (RCW 36.70.70A.179(1)(a)) and to adopt development regulations that will protect them
(RCW 36.70A.060(2)).
1. Is your proposed project in any of the "Critical Area" classifications identified in
Washington State's Growth Management Act? These areas include: Wetlands,
Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous
Areas such as landslide, erosion, alluvial fan, seismically active, or volcanic
areas, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas.
YES X NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the critical area category(s).
Frequently flooded area
Class I river with Salmonoids
Wetlands
3. If your proposed project is in a designated critical area, please explain if and how
it will contribute to further development in the area.
Acquired properties will be maintained as open space; therefore the proposed action will
reduce the level of development in these designated critical areas.
68 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
H. CODE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
1. Will your project meet all applicable codes and standards for the area in which it
is located?
YES X NO
2. If you answer NO, please describe on a separate sheet the exemptions or
variances that will be required.
I. REGIONAL OR BASIN-WIDE PLANNING
1. How has your jurisdiction coordinated the planning and possible impacts of this
project with neighboring jurisdictions (counties, cities, states, etc.)? Please
explain.
The county has met with all of the downstream jurisdictions (neighborhoods, towns
within Sasquatch County and the downstream counties to discuss development of flood
mitigation proposals.
2. Will this project affect upstream/downstream/neighboring jurisdictions? Please
explain to what level this has been done, or why not if nothing has been done.
This project will not affect upstream communities.
Downstream communities will be affected by the reduction of pollutants flowing
downstream and possibly a minor reduction in the amount of water flowing downstream
as a result of increased storage capacity.
SECTION 11 CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES.
As the duly authorized agent of the applicant, I certify that the information provided below in this
application is true and correct. I further assure that the applicant will comply with all applicable
state and federal regulations concerning the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. I will get all
necessary permits and approvals if the proposed project is awarded Hazard Mitigation Grant
funds. I recognize that failure to comply with all of the applicable state and federal regulations
may be grounds for the revocation of current, or the denial of future, Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program funding.
For projects that involve elevation of individual homes and structures, we must get applicable
plans and permits. A building official, currently certified by applicable code organizations
(ICBO, etc.) must accomplish final certification of the elevation portion of the project.
For projects that involve the acquisition/relocation of properties in the floodplain, the following
eligibility criteria and assurances from 44 CFR ' 206.434 (d) apply:
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 69
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
(1) We will convey the following restrictive covenants in the deed of any property acquired,
accepted, or from which structures are removed (hereafter called the property).
(i) The property will be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for uses compatible
with open space, recreational, or wetlands management practices.
(ii) No new structure(s) will be built on the property except as indicated below:
a. A public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to a
designated open space or recreation use;
b. A restroom; or
C. A structure that is compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands
management usage and proper floodplain management policies and
practices that the Director approves in writing before the construction of
the structure begins.
(iii) After completion of the project, we will not apply for additional DISASTER
assistance for any purpose with respect to the property to any federal entity or
source, and no federal entity or source will provide such assistance.
(2) In general allowable open space, recreational, and wetland management uses include
parks for outdoor recreational activities, nature reserves, cultivation, grazing, camping
(except where adequate warning time is not available to allow evacuation), temporary
storage in the open of wheeled vehicles that are easily movable (except mobile homes),
unimproved, previous parking lots, and buffer zones.
(3) Any structures built on the property will be flood proofed or elevated to the Base Flood
Elevation plus one foot of freeboard.
I further certify that the proposed project has been reviewed by the applicable planning
director/department and found consistent with our adopted comprehensive plan and
development regulations.
understand that failure to comply with these conditions following the acceptance of any grant
funds will cause the funds to be eligible for an immediate recapture by the State of Washington.
Authorized Signature
Date
70 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
SECTION 12. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN APPLICANT'S AGENT.
For the State of Washington Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Ian Taylor, P.E.
(Name - Printed) (Title)
Or his/her alternate: Sasha Perry, P.E.
(Name - Printed) (Title)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of Sasquatch County,
a local government entity established under the laws of the State of Washington, this
application and to file in the Military Department, Emergency Management Division for
the purpose of obtaining certain federal and state financial assistance under Section 404
of P.L. 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act
of 1988.
THAT Sasquatch County hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State Emergency
Management Division for all matters concerning such state disaster mitigation
assistance the assurances and agreements required.
Passed and approved this 5th day of August, 19xx
(Signature and Title)
(Signature and Title)
CERTIFICATION
I, Mary Ann duly appointed and County Commissioner
(Name) (Title)
of Sasquatch County, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a
resolution passed and approved by the Board of Commissioners of Sasquatch County
on the 5th day of August, 19xx
(Signature)
(Title)
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 71
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
SAMPLE
(This page is purposely blank.)
72 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 5
MAY 1997
APPLICANT APPEAL PROCESS
WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT
Emergency Management Division
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Applicant Appeal Process - State Level
I. CRITERIA FOR APPEAL
Jurisdictions may appeal a decision of the Mitigation Grant Review Committee based on the
following:
A. Failure by the Committee to follow established processes as outlined in the state's
Hazard Mitigation Administration Plan and/or the processes as outlined herein.
B. Arbitrary or capricious decisions by the Committee.
II. APPEAL PROCESS AND TIME LINE
All jurisdictions will be provided formal notification of their recommended/non-recommended
status which will be forwarded to the State Military Department; EMD Director.
A. Those jurisdictions initially recommended will be notified if there is, or is not, an appeal
of the Committee's recommendations being processed.
1. An appeal will delay all recommendations being forwarded to the Director until the
appeal process is complete.
2. A successful appeal may result in a re-ranking of the recommended projects and
could affect funding for any particular project.
B. Those not being recommended by the Committee will be provided the specific non-
recommendation criteria. Should an applicant wish to appeal the non-recommendation
of their project by the Military Department, they must:
1. Within FIFTEEN days of receipt of formal notice of non-recommendation respond, in
writing, to the specific non-recommendation criteria with full justification or
clarification to the Mitigation Grant Review Committee.
2. The Committee will review the appeal, make investigations as necessary, and
forward it, with a written recommendation, to the Director of Emergency
Management.
C. The Director of Emergency Management will review the material submitted and make
any additional investigations as deemed appropriate.
1. The jurisdiction will be notified of the Director's decision within ten days following the
DEPARTMENT's receipt of the formal "Appeal of Determination" packet.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 73
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 6
MAY 1997
APPLICANT APPEAL PROCESS
D. If the Director of Emergency Management denies the appeal:
1. The original list of recommendations by the Committee will be forwarded to The
Adjutant General, with a copy of the appeal results.
2. All applicants will be notified of the appeal recommendation results and the appeal
process has been completed.
E. If the Director finds in favor of the appeal, the Mitigation Grant Review Committee will be
instructed to take appropriate implementing actions.
1. The entire listing of recommendations will be re-ranked.
2. Affected jurisdictions will be notified and not be allowed to appeal this decision.
3. A revised recommendation packet will be forwarded to the Director with appropriate
documentation and explanation of appeal results.
F. All decisions of the Director are final.
111111. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION
The project must meet federal eligibility criteria referenced in CFR 44, 206.434. To be eligible,
the project must demonstrate that it:
A. Conforms with the State Flood Damage Reduction Plan (409).
B. Has a beneficial impact on disaster-affected area.
C. Conforms with CFR 44, Part 9 Floodplain Management, and/or Part 10 Protection of
Wetlands.
D. Solves a problem independently or will be a functional part of a solution with assurance
that the whole project will be completed. (Projects that merely identify or analyze the
hazard or problem are not eligible.)
E. Will be cost-effective and substantially reduce risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or
suffering. This must be demonstrated by documenting that the project:
1. Addresses a repetitive problem or one that poses a significant risk to public health
and safety if left unsolved.
2. Will not cost more than the anticipated value of the reduction in both direct damages
and subsequent negative impacts to the area if future disasters were to occur.
3. Has been determined to be the most practical, effective, and environmentally-sound
alternative after consideration of a range of options.
74 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 6
MAY 1997
APPLICANT APPEAL PROCESS
4. Contributes, to the extent practicable, a long-term solution.
5. Considers long-term changes to the areas and entities it protects, and has
manageable future maintenance and modification requirements.
IV. CRITERIA FOR NON-SELECTION
These are the established criteria for NON-SELECTION of applications for recommendation to
the Director and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funding:
A. Application and/or supporting materials were not received by the deadline.
B. Grant request exceeds established funding limits.
C. Project does not meet eligibility criteria in CFR 44, 206.434, or fails to meet scoring
minimums based upon eligibility criteria. (Please see III above.)
D. Project does not meet National Environmental Policy Act requirements for early,
documented public input in the selection of alternatives.
E. Projects that merely identify or analyze the hazard or problem (studies) are not eligible.
F. Hazard Mitigation (Section 404) funds cannot be used as a substitute or replacement
to fund projects or programs that are available under other federal authorities, except
when there are limited circumstances such as extraordinary threats to lives, public
health or safety, or improved property.
G. Projects are not recommended by the Mitigation Review Committee. Applications are
scored by a committee of up to five individuals from state and/or local governments.
Composite scores are used to assign ranking order. The Committee then derives their
list of projects for recommendation by a combination of:
1. Composite score;
2. Geographical mix;
3. Funding amounts per community;
4. Other available sources of funding; and
5. Grant funds available.
6. Number of grants currently active. (A jurisdiction may have no more than four (4)
active grant projects.)
7. Past HMGP participation and results.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 75
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 6
MAY 1997
(This page is purposely blank.)
76 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 7
MAY 1997
Excerpts from:
Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act,
P.L. 93-288 as amended
MA
"G BELlO
1 O
W �
Reprinted by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
May 1995
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 77
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 7
MAY 1997
HAZARD MITIGATION
(42 U.S.C. '5170,c)
Sec.404.(a) In General. The President may contribute up to 75 percent of the cost of hazard mitigation measures which the
President has determined are cost-effective and which substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or
suffering in any area affected by a major disaster. Such measures shall be identified following the evaluation of natural hazards
under section 409 and shall be subject to approval by the President. The total of contributions under this section for a major
disaster shall not exceed 15 percent of the estimated aggregate amount of grants to be made(less any associated
administrative costs)under this Act with respect to the major disaster.
(b) Property Acquisition and Relocation Assistance.
(1) General Authority. In providing hazard mitigation assistance under this section in connection with flooding,the Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency may provide property acquisition and relocation assistance for projects that
meet the requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Terms and Conditions. An acquisition or relocation project shall be eligible to receive assistance pursuant to paragraph (1)
only if-
(A) the applicant for the assistance is otherwise eligible to receive assistance under the hazard mitigation grant program
established under subsection(a);and
(B) on or after the date of enactment of this subsection,the applicant for the assistance enters into an agreement with the
Director that provides assurances that-
(i) any property acquired,accepted,or from which a structure will be removed pursuant to the project will be
dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for use that is compatible with open space,recreational,or wetlands
management practices;
(ii) no new structures will be erected on property acquired,accepted or from which a structure was remove, under the
acquisition or relocation program other than-
(1) a public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to a designated open space;
(II) a rest room;or
(I11) a structure that a Director approves in writing before the commencement of construction of the structure;and
(iii) after receipt of the assistance,with respect to any property acquired,accepted or from which a structure was
removed under the acquisition or relocation program-
(1) no subsequent application for additional disaster assistance for any purpose will be made by the recipient to
any Federal entity;and
(II) no assistance referred to in subclause(1)will be provided to the applicant by any Federal source.
(3) Statutory Construction. Nothing in this subsection is intended to alter or otherwise affect an agreement for an acquisition or
relocation project carried out pursuant to this section that was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
subsection.
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STRUCTURES
(42 U.S.C. '5176)
Sec.409.As a condition of any disaster loan or grant made under the provisions of this Act the recipient shall agree that any
repair or construction to be financed therewith shall be in accordance with applicable standards of safety, decency, and
sanitation and in conformity with applicable codes,specifications, and standards,and shall furnish such evidence or compliance
with this section as may be required by regulation. As a further condition of any loan or grant made under the provisions of this
Act,the State or local govemment shall agree that the natural hazards in the areas in which the proceeds of the grants or loans
are to be used shall be evaluated and appropriate action shall be taken to mitigate such hazards, including safe land use and
construction practices, in accordance with standards prescribed or approved by the President after adequate consultation with
the appropriate elected officials or general purpose local governments,and the State shall furnish such evidence of compliance
with this section as may be required by regulation.
78 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 7
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
The following "Guidelines for Acquisition and Relocation Projects"is from the
January 1995 FEMA document and policy guidelines developed by FEMA and
adapted for use within Washington State. It does not supersede or replace local,
state, or federal laws and regulations relating to property transactions or
environmental regulations. ed.
• • • •
p.0 BELLO M (n
QPCE Fq�Tq
w �
FEMA
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION PROJECTS
(Original publication date -January 1995)
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 79
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
Table of Contents
A. Introduction..................................................................................................... (81)
B. Non-Participating Communities......................................................................... (81)
C. Environmental Review...................................................................................... (81)
1. Type of Documentation Required................................................................. (81)
2. Coordination With other Federal Agencies..................................................... (82)
3. Hazardous Materials Concerns..................................................................... (82)
D. Coordination With other Programs/Agencies....................................................... (83)
E. Property Appraisal and Negotiation.................................................................... (83)
F. URA and Relocation Assistance....................................................................... (84)
1. Applicability of the URA............................................................................. (84)
2. Mandatory URA Assistance for Displaced Tenants................................... (84)
G. Disposition of Property..................................................................................... (85)
1. Property Title and Reconveyance............................................................... (85)
2. Deed Restrictions and Applicant Responsibility.......................................... (86)
H. Treatment of Agricultural Properties................................................................. (87)
I. Duplication of Benefits....................................................................................... (88)
J. Costs and Matching Considerations.............................................................. (89)
Questions and Answers Regarding Allowable Costs and Matches.................... (89)
Figure 1 Acquisition and Relocation Programs
Applicant Assistance Decision Tree................................................................. (91)
Addendum 1: 44CFR Part 206 RIN 3067-A................................................................ (92)
Addendum 2: Sample Acquisition Letter .................................................................... (96)
Addendum 3: Sample Voluntary Transaction Agreement............................................. (99)
Addendum 4: Attachments to Deeds ........................................................................ (102)
80 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
A. INTRODUCTION
Through the HMGP, the state and FEMA can provide funding to an eligible applicant for the
purpose of acquiring property in hazardous areas and/or relocating structures to new sites. To
be eligible for HMGP assistance, this type of project should meet the following minimum
requirements (in addition to the standard HMGP eligibility requirements found at 44 CFR 206
Subpart N):
1. The community must inform prospective participants in writing that it will not use its
condemnation authority to acquire their property should negotiations fail and property
owners must voluntarily elect to participate in the program;
2. The deed to the property acquired (or from which structures will be removed) will carry a
restriction that the property will be maintained as open space in perpetuity, and that no
future Federal disaster assistance will be made available to it; and
3. Any relocated structures will be placed on sites located outside of the 100-year floodplain
and any regulatory erosion zones, and in conformance with any other applicable State or
local land use restrictions. Critical facilities must be located outside the 500 year floodplain.
Generally, HMGP funded property acquisition projects consist of a community purchasing flood-
damaged homes and either demolishing them or physically moving them to a new site outside
of the floodplain. The purchased property is then maintained for open space purposes. While
some communities may elect to develop a new site outside of the floodplain for participating
residents to move to, FEMA encourages communities to opt for the simpler acquisition and
structure removal model. These projects require only minimal environmental review, are
considerably less expensive, and allow homeowners to determine where to relocate. This
guidance is generally aimed at acquisition/structure removal projects.
B. NON-PARTICIPATING COMMUNITIES
HMGP grants for acquisition of flood-prone property cannot be made available in certain
communities which do not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Federal
grants cannot be given for acquisition or construction purposes if the site is located in a
designated special flood hazard area which has been identified by the Director for at least one
year and the community is not participating in the NFIP. However, if the community qualifies for
and enters the NFIP during the six-month period following the major disaster declaration, a
grant application may be considered by the State. FEMA recommends that the States give
priority to those communities that were participating in good standing in the NFIP before the
disaster and are complying with NFIP requirements during reconstruction.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
1. Type of Documentation Required
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FEMA must conduct an
environmental review of the proposed acquisition or relocation. Depending on the scope of the
project, the review is documented in one of three forms:
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 81
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
a. A memorandum to the file indicating that the project is categorically excluded;
b. An Environmental Assessment (EA); or
C. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
FEMA has published an amendment to its categorical exclusions (44 CFR Part 10) which
excludes projects involving only the acquisition of properties and the demolition of structures from
the need to perform an environmental assessment. Projects meeting this exclusion will generally
require only a memorandum to the file, signed by the Regional Director, indicating the applicability
of the categorical exclusion and compliance with other laws, such as the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. FEMA and the State
must coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Officer on all acquisition projects to ensure
compliance with the Section 106 process. Projects involving actual structure relocations or new
site developments will require an EA or EIS.
In addition to the elements identified at 44 CFR Part 10.9 and 10.10, the environmental review
document should contain descriptions of how the project meets the minimum requirements listed
above, how the project was coordinated with other programs and agencies, and what the
disposition of the property and structures will be. If the project involves the physical relocation of a
structure to a new site, the environmental review should discuss the impacts to both the old site
and the new one.
2. Coordination With Other Federal Agencies
If other agencies or programs are also contributing to the acquisition or relocation of properties
in the same area, one joint environmental review should be conducted. FEMA Mitigation staff
should coordinate closely with the other involved program managers, especially those within
FEMA. If several agencies are involved and the project scope warrants formal coordination, a
lead agency should be designated in accordance with 44 CFR Part 10.7.
3. Hazardous Materials Concerns
If a community is considering purchasing commercial or agricultural property, it should ensure
that the owner provides information identifying what, if any, hazardous materials are on the
property. The community should require the owner to remove hazardous materials and
containers, before purchasing such properties. FEMA funds should not be used to purchase
contaminated property. The owner must certify that any contamination has been cleaned up to
meet Federal and State standards before the community can purchase any interest (including
an easement for development rights) in the property. When the community purchases an
easement for development rights only, the seller must agree to indemnify FEMA and the
community for any liability arising from contamination of the property.
82 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
D. COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS/AGENCIES
Agencies and programs involved should coordinate joint acquisition or relocation projects to the
greatest extent possible. When funds from other Federal sources are used to match HMGP
grants, both programs, requirements apply to the whole project. While FEMA is not responsible
for ensuring this compliance for other agencies, coordination with the local program
representatives is essential. The State, as grantee, is responsible for coordinating the various
programs available within the State.
Because HMGP is a very flexible program in terms of specific procedures, it is beneficial to
coordinate approaches and schedules with other programs involved. The objective should be
to make the process as simple and consistent for the applicants and homeowners as possible.
E. PROPERTY APPRAISAL AND NEGOTIATION
For each property identified for acquisition, the grantee or subgrantee should establish and
document a fair market value. The value must be derived from a reasonable methodology that
has been consistently applied throughout the community, such as independent appraisals,
opinions of value, or a formula based on tax assessments. FEMA should coordinate with the
State and the subgrantee (community) in their determination of whether the valuation should be
based on pre- or post-flood market value. However, all appraisals in a given community (i.e.
HMGP project area) should be based on the same terms.
FEMA should ensure that all property owners are treated fairly and are offered an equitable
package of benefits. As detailed below in Section I, "Duplication of Benefits," the subgrantee
must make certain deductions from the established fair market value before making a purchase
offer. However, FEMA offers the State the option of providing a credit to property owners with
flood insurance. In this case, the subgrantee would allow the property owner to retain an
amount from the flood insurance claim settlement equal to up to 5 years of flood insurance
premiums actually paid by the current property owner for a National Flood Insurance Policy for
structure coverage. (Normally the subgrantee must deduct the entire flood insurance settlement
awarded for structure repair from the purchase offer.) The amount retained would be in no case
greater than the amount paid as claim settlement for building damage to the property; nor
would it be more than premiums actually paid by the property owner for structure (as opposed
to contents) coverage for the preceding five year period. (See figure 1)
The acquiring entity (subgrantee) must inform each property owner of what it considers to be
the fair market value of the property. The subgrantee may wish to set a time limit with the
property owner for the validity of a purchase offer. If several different entities or programs are
acquiring property in the same area, property owners may find it confusing if different offers are
made to area owners at different times. To avoid any negotiation difficulties or confusion, the
local community should coordinate the release of appraisal information and purchase offers to
property owners for the various programs.
If the current property owner purchased the flood-damaged property after the disaster
declaration, then the community cannot offer the owner more than the post-flood fair market
value, (i.e. the amount paid by the current owner for the damaged property.)
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 83
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
The subgrantee must conduct a title search for each property to ensure that there are no
mortgages or liens outstanding at the time of sale. The grant agreement should include this
stipulation.
F. URA AND Relocation ASSISTANCE
1. Applicability of the URA
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (LTRA)
mandates that property owners receive just compensation for their property and relocation
assistance from federal acquisition programs. The URA also sets specific time limits and places
other requirements on the acquiring agency. There are exceptions to the provisions of the
UPA, however, for voluntary transactions which meet the specific criteria found at 49 CFR Part
2 4. 1 0 1 (a) - This exception requires that the acquiring agency (subgrantee) inform the
property owner in writing:
a. That it will not use its power of condemnation to acquire the property in the event
negotiations fail; and
b. What it believes to be the fair market value of the property.
Note: The Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993 provides a special
exemption for acquisition and relocation projects implemented as a result of the Midwest flood
disasters of 1993. This means that for those particular disasters, the URA does not apply if the
following criteria are met:
a. The purchasing agency (subgrantee) notifies the property owner in writing that it will not use
its power of condemnation to acquire the property;
b. The project is carried out by or through a State or unit of general local government; and
c. Assistance is provided to the project through FEMA or another Federal agency in response
to the disaster.
Although HMGP projects must meet the above criteria for voluntary programs, thus allowing an
exception to URA provisions, FEMA recommends that the property owner and the subgrantee
sign a Voluntary Transaction Agreement (sample attached). This ensures that the property
owner understands that they are not automatically eligible for additional relocation benefits
beyond the purchase price of the property.
2. Mandatory URA Assistance for Displaced Tenants.
Tenants who must relocate as a result of acquisition of their preflood housing are entitled to
URA relocation benefits (such as moving expenses, replacement housing rental payments, and
relocation assistance advisory services), regardless of the owner' s voluntary participation. For
details on these requirements, see 49 CFR Part 24, Subpart C.
84 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
• A tenant displaced from a dwelling due to a FEMA funded acquisition project is entitled to
rental assistance if:
a. The tenant occupied the displacement dwelling for the 90 days preceding the
negotiations for acquisition of the property; and
b. The tenant rents or purchases and occupies a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement
dwelling within one year after the date he or she moves out of the original dwelling.
• The amount of assistance the community must pay to the tenant is derived from 49 CFR Part
24, Subpart E. The URA states that an eligible displaced tenant is entitled to:
a. Reasonable out-of-pocket moving expenses; and
b. Compensation for a reasonable increase in rent and utility costs incurred in connection
with the relocation.
Compensation for rent increase shall be 42 times the amount which is obtained by subtracting
the "base monthly rent"for the displacement dwelling from the monthly rent and average
monthly cost of utilities for a comparable replacement dwelling, or the decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement dwelling now occupied by the displaced person. The rental increase payment may
not exceed a total of$5,250. Communities may exceed this limit in extraordinary
circumstances, if necessary to ensure that a displaced tenant will be able to obtain and retain a
decent, safe, and sanitary comparable unit outside of the floodplain.
The "base monthly rent"for the displacement dwelling is the lesser of the average monthly cost
for utilities plus the rent at the displacement dwelling as determined by the Agency, or 30% of
the tenant's (the URA regulations define tenant as any individual, family, partnership,
corporation, or association) - average gross household income. A rental assistance payment
may, at the subgrantee Is discretion, be disbursed in either a lump sum or in installments.
However, if any HUD programs are providing partial funding for the project, rental assistance
payments may not be disbursed in a lump sum. If the tenant chooses to purchase a
comparable replacement dwelling, he or she may apply the amount of rental assistance to
which they would be entitled towards the down payment.
G. DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY
1. Property Title and Reconveyance
Depending upon the scope of the project, title to the property is treated in one of two ways:
• Full title is acquired or accepted by a public entity (the community, a land trust organization,
a State agency, etc.); or
• The subgrantee acquires all development rights to the property, with the original owner
retaining only the right to make use of the property for farming or quiet enjoyment.
The subgrantee or other public property owner will seek the approval of the State grantee
agency and the FEMA Regional Director before conveying ownership of the property to any
other party. All development rights to the property must be retained by the subgrantee or other
public entity. The FEMA Regional Director will only approve the transfer of properties that meet
the criteria identified above.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 85
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
Note: In situations where the community is only acquiring development rights to the property,
they can provide the property owner an additional incentive to accept the offer by:
a. Paying to physically relocate the damaged structure to a new site outside of the floodplain;
or
b. Paying the pre-flood value of the structure and demolition and removal costs.
2. Deed Restrictions and Applicant Responsibility
As a condition of receiving the grant, the applicants (community and State) shall enter into an
agreement with FEMA that assures:
a. The property acquired, accepted, or from which structures are removed must carry a
permanent deed restriction providing that the property be maintained for open space,
recreational, or wetlands management purposes only;
b. The deed restriction must also stipulate that no future disaster assistance for any purpose
from any Federal source will be sought or provided with respect to the property (Insurance
claims such as NFIP and Federal Crop Insurance are not considered disaster assistance);
c. The deed restriction must also stipulate that no new structures will be erected on the
property other than a public facility that is open on all sides or is a rest room and is
functionally related to open space (structures that are walled on all sides must meet NFIP
minimum requirements);
d. In fee simple transactions, the deed restriction must also stipulate that the new titleholder
must obtain the approval of the State grantee agency and the FEMA Regional Director
before conveying ownership of the property to another public entity. Property transfer to
private citizens and corporations will not be approved. All development rights to the
property must be retained by the subgrantee or other public entity.
e. The subgrantee shall ensure that all structures be removed from the property within 90 days
of closing and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws. (The FEMA Regional
Director can grant an exception to this requirement if extenuating circumstances exist); and
f. The subgrantee accepts responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the deed restriction
and/or easement language.
Allowable open space uses can include, but are not limited to parks, nature preserves,
cultivation, grazing, and unimproved, pervious parking areas. The demolition and debris
removal related to acquired structures may be eligible for reimbursement under FEMA's
Infrastructure Support program if the structures represent a health and safety hazard. If costs
of demolition do not qualify for Infrastructure Support, they can be cost-shared under the
Section 404 program. If any parts of the structure are sold for salvage value, this amount is
deducted from the total cost of the project.
gg HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
The Subgrantee (or whoever holds legal title to the property) must provide for the continued
maintenance of the property once the initial debris removal, vegetative site stabilization, and
new landscaping are complete.
The Director of FEMA may approve, on a case-by-case basis, the erection of structures which
do not meet the criteria above before commencement of construction. However, the structure
must be constructed in compliance with the community's floodplain management ordinance,
meet NFIP minimum requirements, and be compatible with open space uses and floodplain
management policies and practices. A sample warranty deed with the required restrictions is
attached as Figure 3.
H. TREATMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES
A community may include agricultural properties in its acquisition/relocation or elevation project
under Section 404. However, due to the large tracts of land and unique issues involved, these
projects require special consideration. FEMA suggests that communities work with farm property
owners on a case by case basis-to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to the farmer, the
community, the State, and FEMA. FEMA requests that the community take into consideration the
cost of the project and mitigation benefits to be gained in determining what type of offer to make to
a farm property owner, as these factors will be considered by FEMA in its review for funding
approval. Methods which can be used to deal with agricultural property are listed below, the option
selected will depend upon the situation of the farmer and the property.
Situation 1: If the farmer is not interested in continuing to farm or live on the land:
Option 1. Refer the project to the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Wetland Reserve
Program for potential funding.
Option 2. The community can offer to acquire all of the property located within the 100-year
floodplain and revert it to another open space use (i.e., wetland, park, nature reserve, etc.).
However, the benefit cost ratio of this option must be carefully considered.
Option 3. The community can buy the property, ensure that the required permanent restrictions
are placed in the deed, and transfer title to a preservation organization, such as a land trust or a
governmental agency.
Situation 2: If the farmer wants to continue farming the land, and
>If the farmer is interested in continuing to live on the property:
Option 1. And if the farmer owns a large tract of land, part of which is in the 100-year
floodplain and part that is not; then the community can acquire the development rights to
the floodplain portion and provide the owner an additional incentive as described in
paragraph G. 1. above; or
Option 2. The community can provide funding to the property owner to elevate the farm
home and/or wet floodproof farm buildings to meet NFIP requirements (no deed
restrictions are necessary).
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 87
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
>If the farmer is not interested in continuing to live on the property:
Option 3. The community can acquire the development rights to all of the farmer's property
located in the 100 year floodplain and contiguous to the residential parcel affected by the
disaster and provide the owner with an additional incentive as described in paragraph G. 1.
above.
For Situation 2, options 1 and 3:
Cultivation is an acceptable open space use under 44 CFR 206.434. However, some limited crop
storage capacity on-site is necessary in order for the farmer to operate successfully. In order to
allow limited construction of such storage facilities, FEMA has granted a limited exception to the
development restrictions. The exception applies only to projects in which the purchasing
community and the seller agree to execute an easement using the language in figure 4 (or a more
restrictive version). This language (and the exception) should only be used f or the purchase of
agricultural property.
Note: All options above (except Situation 1, option I and Situation 2, option 2) require full
compliance with the property disposition requirements described in Section G.
I. DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS
In the administration of HMGP grants for property acquisition, FEMA and the grantee should
avoid any duplication of benefits with other forms of assistance. FENiH's policy on duplication
of benefits for individuals and families is mandated by Section 312 of the Stafford Act and is set
forth in 44 CFR 206.191. This Section of the FEMA regulations delineates a delivery sequence
establishing the order in which disaster relief agencies and organizations provide assistance to
individuals and families. Programs listed later in the sequence are responsible for ensuring that
they do not duplicate assistance which should be provided by a program listed earlier on the list
(the program with primary responsibility)
For example: Insurance (private and NFIP) is listed as number one in the sequence; the
Individual and Family Grant (IFG), which is number four, cannot pay homeowners for damages
covered by private homeowner's, fire, or national flood insurance. The IFG program is
responsible for finding out the amount of the applicant's claim settlements and what damages
they covered, and ensuring that it does not provide the applicant duplicative assistance.
In the case of flood-damaged property purchase programs (Section 1362, Section 404, etc.), they
are not listed in the delivery sequence, and therefore are positioned after the eight listed
programs. This means that all eight programs listed in the sequence at 44 CFR 206.191(d) are
"primary programs" in relation to property purchase programs. The property purchase program is
required to ensure that it does not duplicate assistance which should be provided by any of the
eight primary assistance programs.
For example: If a homeowner receives funds for structural repairs and also decides to
participate in a property purchase program, he or she is entitled to keep the repair grant benefits
as long as the funds are used for housing purposes. However, the property purchase program
(i.e., Section 404) must reduce its benefit accordingly to avoid duplication.
gg HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
The procedure for preventing the duplication of primary provider benefits follows:
1. The subgrantee provides the state and/or FEMA with a list of property owners who are
participating in the property purchase program.
2. The subgrantee (with the advice and assistance of the State and FEMA) should establish
the fair market value of the property.
3. The state and/or FEMA will inform the subgrantee of the amount of assistance (from
primary providers) provided to each property owner as a result of the same event initiating
the acquisition project.
4. If insurance payments, minimal repair grants, and/or IFG grants were awarded for the
purpose of making repairs to a structure, the subgrantee must reduce the purchase offer by
the amount of the awards. Reductions should not be taken, however, for repairs which the
homeowner can show (with receipts) were actually made.
5. Property owners who have SBA loans are either required to repay the loan or roll it over to a
new property at closing.
This procedure does not amount to the repayment of primary provider grant assistance (i.e.,
IFG, insurance settlements, etc.). The property owner may keep these benefits, but the Section
404 program cannot duplicate them by paying full pre-flood fair market value for the property. If
the community is paying the post-flood fair market value of the property, no deductions for
primary provider benefits are necessary. The process for determining the purchase offer is
outlined in a decision tree which is attached as figure 1.
J. COSTS AND MATCHING CONSIDERATIONS
The administration of acquisition and relocation projects can be very complex. This is especially
true when determining allowable costs and matches. General policies regarding allowable costs
and cost-sharing requirements are established in 44 CFR Part 13. 22 and Part 13.24 respectively.
When determining eligible costs, it is important that the scope of the project be well defined. For
instance, the application should clearly indicate if any structures will be relocated to new sites, if
new sites are to be developed, or if the grant is for property acquisition only. All costs that fit
within the defined scope of the project and meet the criteria at 44 CFR Part 13.22 should be
shared on a 75% federal/25; state or local matching basis.
Questions and Answers Regarding Allowable Costs and Matches
1. Can individual property owners provide the match for Section 404 grants?
Yes (as long as it does not violate state laws and regulations). Individuals may use their own
funds to match HMGP funds provided through the community, including loans received from the
Small Business Administration (SBA) and Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA). In this
situation, the cost of the grant would be based on the fair market value of the property and
HMGP would provide the grantee or subgrantee 75% of that value to purchase the property.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 89
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
2. Can money originating from other Federal sources be used to match FEMA Section 404
funds?
Generally not. However, a subgrantee can use Department of Housing and Urban
Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (entitlement and small cities)
monies as a match for 404 grant funds for property acquisition programs. Also, SBA and
FmHA consider their loan funds to lose their federal identity once the loan to the individual is
approved. Therefore, as stated above, homeowners can apply their SBA or FmHA loans to
match HMGP funds.
3. Can the subgrantee claim loss of tax revenue (due to taxpayers relocating outside the
jurisdiction) as a soft match?
No. The Office of Management and Budget (OME) advises that loss of tax revenue does not
meet the criteria for a grant match.
4. How are the "associated"costs (i.e., legal fees, transfer fees, demolition and removal costs,'
landscaping, etc.) treated in calculating total project costs
To avoid confusion, associated costs should be identified in the project application as being
within the scope of the project. Associated costs which meet the criteria (44 CFR Part 13) for
allowable costs, referenced above, may be shared on a 75/25 percent matching basis. This
includes the cost of"in kind" services performed by the subgrantee. In some cases, the costs of
demolition or new infrastructure development may be eligible under the FEMA Public
Assistance program.
5. If the subgrantee sells or leases a property acquired with HMGP funds can they retain any
income from the transaction?
The subgrantee must request the approval of the state and the FEMA Regional Director before
conveying the deed to another party (public entity only). If the grant period is still open (as
indicated in the grant agreement and the final financial report), any income from sale or lease of
the land must be deducted from the overall cost of the project. However, once the grant period
is ended, any income generated from the property belongs to the title holder. See 44 CFR Part
13.25 for further details.
6. Do the standard wage rate requirements set forth in the Davis-Bacon Act and related Acts
apply to HMGP projects?
Davis-Bacon wage rates apply only to work that FEMA contracts for directly, not to grantee-
contracted work. However, standard wage rates do apply to some HUD grant funds depending
on the funding program and the type, scope, and size of the project. FEMA should coordinate
with HUD field representatives to determine whether the rates apply to specific projects. If
standard rates do apply, the additional cost is eligible under the HMGP at the same cost-share
as the overall project.
-END-
90 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
GUIDELINES FOR ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION
FIGURE 1
Acquisition and Relocation Programs
Applicant Assistance Decision Tree
How to Determine Purchase Offer
START
Did applicant have flood
insurance for structure?
YES NO
Is insurance claim Encourage applicant to
settlement less than or apply for FEMA
equal to actual premiums assistance or SBA loan.
paid in previous five years?
YES NO
Offer: Market Value less
FEMA EMR grants and
IFG awards for repairs.
Offer: Market Value less Subtract amount of
FEMA EMR grants and actual premiums paid
IFG awards for repairs in last 5 years from
settlement.
Offer: Market value less
remainder of settlement
and FEMA EMR grants
and IFG awards for
repairs.
EMR: Emergency Minimal Repairs
IFG: Individual and Family Grant
Note: Participants may be required to repay SBA loans at closing.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 91
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM1
Federal Register I-Vol. 59, No. 90 /Wednesday, May 11, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
24355
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 206 RIN 3067-A
Disaster Assistance; Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Interim rule.
SUMMARY: This interim rule increases the Federal share for eligible hazard mitigation and
relocation assistance projects from a maximum of 50 percent to 75 percent. increases the total
amount of grant assistance available for each disaster, and places restrictions on property
acquisition and relocation projects. The intent of the changes is to carry out the Hazard
Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993, which provides new flexibility in hazard
mitigation and relocation assistance to States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11. 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Shea, Chief, Program Implementation
Division, room 417. 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472. (202) 646-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President signed the Hazard Mitigation and
Relocation Assistance Act (the Act). Pub. L 103-181. on December 3,1993. The Act amends
Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford
Act). 42 U.S.C. 5170c, to increase the Federal contribution to 75 percent, to increase the limit
on Federal expenditures, and to place restrictions on property acquisition and relocation project
grants. This interim rule amends 44 CFR part 206 to implement the Act.
We amend the definition of grant to include the newly established limit on the total grant
award. The Act states that the grant award for hazard mitigation shall not exceed 15 percent of
the total estimated Federal grant assistance (excluding administrative costs) provided under the
Stafford Act. Grant assistance is available under Sections 403. 406. 407. 408. 410. 411. 416,
and 601 of the Stafford Act. FEMA will estimate the amount of assistant provided under these
sections based on available data summarized in the damage survey reports and the Disaster
Management and Projections report. FEMA will include in this total the cost of mission
assignments to other agencies that provide functions that would normally be funded as grant
assistance. The Act increases from 50 percent to 75 percent the maximum Federal
contribution of the cost of hazard mitigation measures. and increases total grant awards from
10 percent of Section 406 to 15 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance under the
Stafford Act.
Under the Act. FEMA must restrict the eligibility of projects involving property
acquisition and relocation assistance for property owners and structures. An eligible applicant
must enter an agreement with the Director of FEMA that provides assurances that the property
will be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for uses compatible with open space,
recreational, or wetlands management practices and no future Federal disaster assistance in
any form will be sought or given with respect to the property. No structures can be built on
these properties unless they are public facilities and functionally related to open space usage
and are open on all sides. or are rest rooms.
The Director may approve other structures, in writing and before construction begins.
The Director's approval will be granted rarely, and when granted, buildings must be compatible
92 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM1
with open space. recreational, or wetlands management practices and be in accordance with
sound floodplain management.
The Act makes the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 inapplicable to properties damaged by flooding during the 1993 Midwest
Floods when certain conditions are met. We define the conditions under which acquisition of
certain properties in nine Midwestern States is not subject to the Uniform Relocation Act. The
intent and effect of this provision is to simplify and speed the acquisition and relocation process
in the nine States severely affected by the Midwest Floods of 1993.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration.
No environmental assessment has been prepared.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Promulgation of this interim rule is required by statute, 42 U.S.0 5170 ( c), which also specifies
the regulatory approach taken in the proposed rule. To the extent possible under the statutory
requirements of 42 U.S.0 5170( c). this proposed rule adheres to the principles ,of regulation as
set forth in this Executive Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not involve any collection of information for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
In promulgating this rule, has considered the President's Executive Order 12612 on Federalism.
This rule makes no changes in the division of governmental responsibilities between the
Federal government and the States. Grant administration procedures under 44 CFR Part 13,
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Governments, remain the same. No Federalism
assessment has been prepared.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, Civil
justice Reform, dated October 25, 1991, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.. P. 359.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206
Administrative practice and procedure, Community facilities, Disaster Assistance, Grant
programs housing and community development, Housing, Natural resources.
Accordingly. 44 CFR part 206 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as follows:
Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 42 U.S.0
5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 5 U.S.0 App. I: E.O. 12148, 3 CFR, 1979
Comp.. p. 412. and E.O. 12673, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., P. 214.
2. Section 206.430 is revised to read as follows:
§206.430 General.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 93
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM 1
This subpart provides guidance on the administration of hazard mitigation grants made under
the provisions of section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c, hereafter Stafford Act, or the Act.
3. Paragraph ( c ) of Section 206.431 Is revised to read as follows:
§206.431 Definitions.
( c ) Grant means an award of financial assistance. The total grant award shall not exceed ten
percent of the estimated Federal assistance provided under section 406 of the Stafford Act for
major disasters declared before June 10. 1993. For major disasters declared an or after June
10, 1993, the total grant award hall not exceed 15 percent of the total estimated Federal
assistance (excluding any associated administrative costs) provided under sections 403. 406,
407, 408, 410, 411, 416, and 6C)i of the Stafford Act.
4. Paragraphs (b) and ( c) of section 206.432 are revised to read as follows:
§ 206.432 Federal grant assistance.
(b) Limitations on Federal expenditure The total of Federal assistance under section 404
shall not exceed 15 percent of the total estimated Federal assistance (excluding any associated
administrative costs) provided under sections 403, 406, 407, 408. 410, 411. 416. and 601 of the
Stafford Act. The estimate of Federal assistance under these sections shall be based on the
Regional Director's estimate of all Damage Survey Reports, actual grants, mission
assignments. and associated expenses.
(c) Cost sharing. All mitigation measures approved under the State's grant will be subject
to the cost sharing provisions established in the FEMA-State Agreement FEMA may contribute
up to 75 percent of the cost of measures approved for funding under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant for major disasters declared on or after June 10. 1993. FEMA may contribute up to 50
percent of the cost of measures approved for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program for major disasters declared before June 10, 1993. The nonfederal share may exceed
the Federal share. FEMA will not contribute to costs above the Federally approved estimate.
Section 206.434 is amended by revising paragraph ( c)(4), redesignating paragraphs (d) and (a)
as paragraphs (f) and (.g) respectively. and adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as
follows:
§ 206.434 Eligibility.
( c)
(4) Property acquisition or relocation, as defined in § 206.434(d):
(d) Property acquisition and relocation requirements. A project involving property
acquisition or the rellocation of structures and individuals is eligible for assistance only if the
applicant enters an agreement with the FEMA Regional Director that provides assurances that:
(1) The following restrictive covenants shall be conveyed in the deed to any property
acquired, accepted, or from which structures are removed (hereafter called in section (d)
the property):
(i) The property shall be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for uses
compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands management practices;
and
(ii) No new structure(s) will be built on the property except as indicated
below:
(A) A public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to
a designated open space or recreational use;
94 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM 1
(B) A rest room, or
(C) A structure that is compatible with open space. recreational, or
wetlands management usage and proper floodplain management policies
and practices, which the Director approves in writing before the
construction of the structure begins.
(iii) After completion of the project, no application for additional disaster
assistance will be made for any purpose with respect to the property to any
Federal entity or source, and no Federal entity or source will provide such
assistance.
(2) In general, allowable open space, recreational. and wetland management uses
include parks for outdoor recreational activities, nature reserves, cultivation, grazing.
camping (except where adequate warning time is not available to allow evacuation),
temporary storage in the open of wheeled vehicles which are easily movable (except
mobile homes), unimproved, previous parking lots, and buffer zones.
(3) Any structures built on the property according to paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
shall be floodproofed or elevated to the Base Flood Elevation plus one foot of freeboard.
(e) Inapplicability of the Uniform Relocation Act. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Of 1971 does not apply to real property acquisition
projects which meet the criteria identified below:
(1) The project provides far the purchase of property damaged by the major
widespread flooding in the States of Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri.
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin during 1993; .
(2) It provides for such purchase solely as a result of such flooding;
(3) It is carried out by or through a State or unit of general local government;
• The purchasing agency (grantee or subgrantee) notifies all potential property
owners in writing that it will not use its power of eminent domain to acquire the
properties if a voluntary agreement is not reached;
• The project is being assisted with amounts made available for.
• Disaster relief by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; or
• By other Federal financial assistance programs.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83-516, "Disaster Assistance")
Dated: May 4,1994.
James L. Witt, Director.
(FR Doc. 94-11422 Filed 5-10-94; 8:45 am)
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 95
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM 2
SAMPLE ACQUISITION LETTER
Your Community
Somewhere Washington
Date
Property Owner
Address
Somewhere, Washington 98XXX
Dear Mr./Mrs. Property Owner:
I have been authorized to enter into negotiations with property owners in the (city/county-your
community), Washington, for the purpose of purchasing property which has been, or could be,
damaged by flooding. Title to such property, if purchased, would be transferred to (your
jurisdiction), Washington. The acquisition of property can only be accomplished through
voluntary sale by you, the property owner. As the (jurisdiction's) attorney/agent I will explain
your rights and options under this program, present you the Statement of Determination of
Compensation and Offer to Sell, as well as handle any negotiations concerning the property.
The information concerning your property and specifically the appraiser's report has been
considered and the pre-flood fair market value of your property has been evaluated where
possible. The appropriate amount of compensation of your property has been determined and
is documented in the enclosed "Statement of Determination of Compensation".
You should carefully review the enclosed material and the "Offer to Sell Real Property" and
consider one of the following options which are available to you:
(1) Make an Offer to Sell Real Property for the amount specified in the determination of
compensation. If you wish to sell your property for the amount specified in the
Determination of Compensation, please sign and return to the (jurisdiction)
attorney/agent the enclosed Offer to Sell Real Property in duplicate no later than two
weeks after receipt. Once all signed copies are returned to the Qurisdiction)
attorney/agent, one copy will be executed and returned to you. Upon receipt the
transaction may proceed to closing.
(2) Reject this invitation to make an Offer to Sell. If you wish to reject this invitation and you
do not want to continue negotiation for the sale of your property, then please notify the
(jurisdiction's) attorney/agent of your decision no later than tow weeks after receipt. The
acquisition process for your property will be terminated at this point.
96 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM 2
SAMPLE ACQUISITION LETTER
(3) Contest the amount specified in the Determination of Compensation. If you believe that
the amount of compensation specified in the Determination of Compensation does not
adequately reflect the pre-flood fair market value of your property and you still desire to
continue negotiations, then you may contest the determinations by (a) retaining at your
own expense a licensed, certified appraiser, to perform a second appraisal, within to
weeks of receiving the Offer to Sell; (b) notifying in writing the (jurisdiction's)
attorney/agent of your decision; and, (c) forwarding the second appraisal once
completed to the (jurisdiction's) attorney/agent so it can be sent tot he State for review,
and after reviewed, the (jurisdiction) will begin a new negotiation for compensation
amount.
Once the new invitation and the amended document are received, you may execute the original
or amended Offer to Sell Real Property and mail the offer to the (jurisdiction's) attorney/agent
within two weeks of receipt, or you may terminate the transaction.
If you have made repairs to your property using some of your flood insurance proceeds or
Individual and Family Grant (IFG) structural monies, please present all paid receipts (invoices,
canceled checks, etc.) to the (jurisdiction's) attorney/agent of the closing meeting. If approved,
the offer will be adjusted to reflect the repairs.
As mentioned previously, you will have two weeks after receipt of this material to sign the Offer
to Sell Real Property. The Jurisdiction would like to proceed with the process for property
purchase as soon as possible; therefore, we would appreciate your early consideration of this
matter.
I know this is an important decision for you. Therefore, the (jurisdiction's) attorney/agent will
meet with you personally to present this information and to answer any questions you may have
in this matter. I hope we will be able to negotiate the purchase of your property in order to
provide you the opportunity to move to a flood-free location. If you have any questions, please
contact Mr./Ms. Jurisdiction Representative at (123) 555-1212.
Sincerely,
((Jurisdiction's) attorney/agent
enclosures
cc: State EMD/HMGP
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 97
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM 2
SAMPLE ACQUISITION LETTER
STATEMENT OF DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION
I. Property Location: Somewhere, Washington: Parcel -
If. Legal Description:
III. Owner s(,) of Record: Mr./Ms Homeowner
IV. Interest to be acquired: Fee Simple
V. Amount of Compensation: $ dollars. This amount is based on an
estimated value of$ from which an insurance payment of$ has been
deducted. lit is believed to be just compensation for the property and is not less than the
fair market appraisal which was done on your property.
VII. Description of Appraisal Technique: The amount of compensation disregards any
increase in the pre-flood fair market value of the property caused by this project. The
amount of compensation is based upon an appraisal which utilized the
approach for studying the property in the light of its own characteristics and location in
relation to sales of other similar sites in the same general area.
The appraisal estimated the fair market value of this property as of (date). The definition
of Market Value used was:
"The amount of cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all
probability the property would be sold by a knowledgeable owner willing but not
obligated to sell to a knowledgeable purchaser who desired but is not obligated to buy."
98 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM
SAMPLE VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 19_, by
and between the (City/County) of a municipal corporation, by its agent
and attorney, hereinafter call (CITY/COUNTY), and
hereinafter called SELLER(s).
WITNESSETH:
That the City/County is acting under a grant from the Washington State Military Department,
Emergency Management Division (EMD), to purchase certain property in the (Jurisdiction) of
County, Washington, which
the Sellers own a parcel a described in Exhibit "'I", attached hereto and made a part of.
Sellers represent that their property is located in the floodplain and qualify for the assistance
being granted and are UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY UNDER THIS
PROGRAM, BUT DO SO VOLUNTARILY.
The parties agree as follows:
1. Sellers have been supplied with a copy of the appraisal of which said
appraisal has been reviewed and approved by EMD, with the established Pre-Flood Fair
Market Value (FMV) as of the date of 19 , of$ dollars.
2. Sellers acknowledge that the price to be paid for clear title is the fair market value with
deductions in the amount of$ dollars for any flood insurance payment
received by Sellers for structural damage and $ dollars for which the Individual
and Family Grant (IFG) program for which the homeowner cannot document as expended
on repair of the damaged structure.
3. Sellers agree that they will, in writing, furnish to the (jurisdiction) within five (5) days from the
date of this agreement, a list of all liens of any kind known to the Sellers, including but not
limited to mortgages, mechanics liens, judgment liens, and past due taxes.
4. It is understood by all parties that the proceeds from the sale shall first be applied to all liens
on the property, including real estate taxes for the entire year 19 . It is further
understood that the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds being used for the
purchase of the property, cannot and will not duplicate benefits received for the same from
any other funds. Sellers will return any disaster aid money received if it amounts to a
duplicity of benefits.
5. Sellers understand and agree that any replacement housing purchased with EMD monies
WILL NOT BE IN ANY FLOOD ZONE A (100 flood zone) as identified in the Flood
insurance Rate Maps of any applicable jurisdiction.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 99
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM
SAMPLE VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION AGREEMENT
6. Sellers agree they will execute all necessary documents to transfer title to the property to
the (Jurisdiction) and also agree to execute now and in the future, any and all documents
required by the (Jurisdiction) or EMD to complete this transaction and to comply with City,
State and Federal regulations.
7. No fixtures, materials or improvements to the real estate shall be removed from the
premises, and, (because of legal liability reasons, the (Jurisdiction) will not permit any
materials to be :salvaged at this time or at the time of demolition. Any violation of this
agreement may result in changing the fair market value of the structure. The value of the
property removed will be solely determined by the (Jurisdiction) and will be deducted from
the purchase price, if the purchase price has not yet been paid in full or to be repaid by the
Seller within ten (10) days after removal if the purchase price has been paid to the Seller.
8. Sellers represent onto the (Jurisdiction) that they will vacate the property at the time of
closing.
9. Sellers acknowledge that they have had an opportunity to review this contract and they
have had an opportunity, if they so choose, to contact an attorney of their choice to review
this Agreement and enter into the Agreement fully understanding the nature thereof and
saves and holds harmless the (Jurisdiction) or any representative, of any liability or
responsibility as; a result of this contract or anything incident to the sale.
This agreement is binding upon the heirs, executors, successors and assigns all parties.
DATED this day of A.D., 19
Seller (s)
(Jurisdiction) of _ : a municipal corporation,
By:
100 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM
SAMPLE VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION AGREEMENT
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
For projects that involve the acquisition/relocation of properties in the floodplain, the following
eligibility criteria and assurances from 44 CFR ' 206.434 (d) apply:
(1) The following restrictive covenants shall be conveyed in the deed of any property
acquired, accepted, or from which structures are removed (hereafter called the
property).
(i) The property shall be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for uses compatible
with open space, recreational, or wetlands management practices; and
(ii) No new structure(s) will be built on the property except as indicated below:
(A) A public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to a
designated open space or recreation use;
(B) A restroom; or
(C) A structure that is compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands
management usage and proper floodplain management policies and
practices with the Director approves in writing before the construction of
the structure begins.
(iii) After completion of the project, no application for additional disaster assistance
will be made for any purpose with respect to the property to any federal entity or
source, and no federal entity or source will provide such assistance.
(2) In general allowable open space, recreational, and wetland management uses include
parks for outdoor recreational activities, nature reserves, cultivation, grazing, camping
(except where adequate warning time is not available to allow evacuation), temporary
storage in the open of wheeled vehicles which are easily movable (except mobile
homes), unimproved, previous parking lots, and buffer zones.
(3) Any structures built on the property shall be floodproofed or elevated to the Base Flood
Elevation plus one foot of freeboard.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 101
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM
Attachment to Deeds for Fee Simple Acquisitions
For fee simple acquisition (acquiring title to land), use Exhibit A
1) FEMA Regional Director should concur on the State-applicant agreement that must
reference and attach Exhibit A in the deed and record it with the deed.
2) The applicant shall reference Exhibit A in the deed and record it with the deed.
EXHIBIT A
In reference to the Deed between [the property owner] participating in the FEMA/ State
of Washington Military Department acquisition project "The Grantor" and [the City of
..........], "The Grantee":
WHEREAS, The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
Public Law 93-288, as amended ("The Stafford Act"), identifies the use of disaster relief
funds under Section 404 (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, "HMGP"), including the
acquisition and relocation of structures in the floodplain;
WHEREAS, Section 404 of the Stafford Act provides a process for a community,
through the State„ to make application for funding to be used to acquire interests in
property, including the purchase of structures in the floodplain, to demolish and/or
remove the buildings, and to convert the land use into perpetual open space;
WHEREAS, the [Washington State Military Department, Emergency Management
Division ("DEPARTMENT')] has made such application and has entered into a Federal-
State Agreement dated [DATE as amended] and herein incorporated by reference;
WHEREAS, the [City of........], acting by and through the [City
{Council/Board/Commissioners)], has entered into a cooperative grant agreement with
the DEPARTMENT dated [DATE] ("Grant Agreement"), and herein incorporated by
reference -- [include when attached to deed];
WHEREAS, the terms of the Stafford Act, regulations promulgated thereunder (44
C.F.R. § 206.434), and the Federal-State Agreement require that the Grantee agree to
conditions which are intended to restrict the use of the land to open space in perpetuity
in order to protect and preserve natural floodplain values; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the grant is made subject to the following terms and conditions:
102 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM 4
Attachment to Deeds for Fee Simple Acquisitions
1. Terms. Pursuant to the terms of the Stafford Act, regulations promulgated
thereunder (44 C.F.R. § 206.434), as they read now and may be amended in the
future, and the Federal-State Agreement, the following conditions and restriction
shall apply in perpetuity to each property described in the attached deed and
acquired by the Grantee pursuant to the Stafford Act § 404:
(a) Compatible uses. The land shall be used only for purposes compatible with
open space, recreational, or wetlands management practices; ion general,
such uses include parks for outdoor recreation activities, nature reserves,
unimproved pervious parking lots and other uses described in 44 C.F.R. §
206.434, as it reads now and may be amended in the future.
(b) Structures. No new structures or improvements shall be erected on the
property other than:
(i) a public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to the
open space use;
a rest room; or
(iii) a structure that is compatible with the uses described in Paragraph 1
(a), above, and approved by the FEMA Regional Director in writing
prior to the commencement of the construction of the structure. Any
structures built on the property according to this paragraph shall be
flood proofed or elevated to the Base Flood Elevation plus one foot of
freeboard.
(c) Disaster Assistance. No future disaster assistance from any Federal Source
for any purpose related to the property may be sought, nor will such
assistance be provided;
(d) Transfer. The Grantee agrees that it shall convey any interest in the property
only with prior approval of the transferee from the Regional Director of FEMA
and only to another public entity or to an organization qualified under Section
170 (h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and applicable
regulations promulgated thereunder. However, the Grantee may convey a
lease to a private individual or entity for purposes compatible with the uses
described in Paragraph 1 (a), above, including agriculture, with the prior
approval of the Regional Director.
Title to the property must be conveyed subject to a Conservation Easement
that shall be recorded with the deed and shall incorporate all terms and
conditions set forth herein, including the easement holder's responsibility to
enforce the easement. This shall be accomplished by one of the following
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM 103
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ADDENDUM
Attachment to Deeds for Fee Simple Acquisitions
means:
(i) the Grantee shall convey, in accordance with section (d), above, a
conservation easement to someone other than the title holder, or
at the time of title transfer, the Grantee shall retain such conservation
easement, and record it with the deed.
2. Inspection. FEMA, its representatives, and assigns, including the DEPARTMENT,
shall have the right to enter upon the property, at reasonable times and with
reasonable notice, for the purpose of inspecting the property to ensure compliance
with the terms of the grant.
3. Enforcement. If the subject property is not maintained according to the terms of the
grant, FEMA, its representatives, and assigns, the DEPARTMENT and the Grantee
are responsible for taking measures to bring the property back into compliance.
(a) The DEPARTMENT will notify the Grantee in writing and advise the Grantee
that it has 60 days to correct the violation.
(b) If the Grantee fails to demonstrate a good faith effort to come into compliance
with the terms of the grant within the 60-day period, the DEPARTMENT shall
enforce the terms of the grant by taking any measure it deems appropriate,
including but not limited to bringing an action at law or in equity in a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(c) FEMA may enforce the terms of the grant by taking any measures it deems
appropriate, including but not limited to the following:
(i) requiring transfer of title in accordance with Paragraph 1 (d). The
Grantee shall bear the costs of bringing the property back into
compliance with the terms of the grant; or
(ii) bringing an action at law or in equity in a court of competent
jurisdiction against the DEPARTMENT or the Grantee.
5. Severability. Should any provision of this grant or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance be found to be invalid or unenforceable, the rest and
remainder of the provisions of this grant and their application shall not be affected
and shall remain valid and enforceable.
[Signed by Grantor(s) and Grantee, witnesses and notarization in accordance
with local law.]
104 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
APPLICANT HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES APPENDIX 8
MAY 1997
ATE
Relocation Assistance to Tenants
� Tc
` z
1889
Application and Worksheet Mav 1997
Displaced Tenant:
Displaced Dwelling Address:
Contact Information for Displaced Tenant
(e.g. current phone number):
Owner of Displacement Dwelling:
Relocation Assistance Application/Worksheet Completed by:
Step 1 90 Day Rule
1. Date of Negotiations with owner of dwelling:
2. days prior to date listed in (1):
3. Date tenant moved into displaced dwelling:
4. Is date in (3) before date in (2)? - _. ...... ..................... Yes No
• If No, STOP; tenant is not eligible for assistance. If Yes, proceed to (5).
5. Does tenant still reside in displaced dwelling? _ _ _ .Yes No
• If No, proceed to (6). If Yes, tenant meets 90 day rule, proceed to Step 2.
6. Date Tenant moved from displaced dwelling:
7. Is date in (6) before date in (2)?.. _... ._.. _ _ .- -_ _ ....__. _ .......... .......................... Yes No
• If Yes, STOP: tenant is not eligible for assistance. If No, tenant meets 90 day rule, proceed
to Step 2.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM APPENDIX 9 105
MAY 1997
Step 2 Income Verification
1. Tenant's Annual Income: $
• Definition of Annual Income: All income reported on federal tax return, interest
income, net income from rental property ownership, social security payments,
Unemployment benefits and welfare payments for the 12 month period prior to
displacement.
2. Which of the following was used to determine annual income? (circle one)
Income tax.forms Payroll receipts 3'd party verification
Copy documentation and retain with application; 3`d party verification forms are
submitted to employer, social service office or other income source to be completed and
returned with signature.
Step 3 Percentage of Annual Income
1. Tenant's annual income: $
2. Multiply by: .30 or (30%) $
Step 4 Low to Moderate Income Determination
1. Refer to LMI standards (CDBG manual).
2. Is tenant considered LMI according to standards? ....... Yes No
Step 5 Determine Replacement Dwelling Monthly Rent
1. Monthly rent Tenant pays/will be paying
for replacement dwelling (requires proof): $
2. Average monthly, utilities (requires landlord statement or utility company documents):
a) Water $
NOTE:
b) Sewer $ If the tenant plans to
purchase home,
c) Gas $ "Replacement Dwelling
Rent" = Fair Market Rent
d) Electricity $ as determined in Step 6.
e) $
f) $
g) TOTAL: $ average monthly utilities:
3. REPLACEMENT DWELLING MONTHLY RENT
• (Equals total of line (1) and Line (2)g) $
106 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM APPENDIX 9
MAY 1997
Step 6 Determine Fair Market Rent for Comparable Replacement Dwelling
1. Does replacement dwelling meet the following criteria for comparable, decent, safe and
sanitary?
a) Functionally equivalent to (equal or better than) displacement home? Yes No
b) Actually available for rent? Yes No
c) Affordable? Yes No
d) Reasonably accessible to place of employment? Yes No
e) Generally well located to public and commercial facilities
(schools, stores, etc.) as compared to displacement dwelling? Yes No
f) Not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions? Yes No
g) Available to all persons regardless of race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin? Yes No
h) Meets applicable housing & occupancy requirements Yes No
i) Is structurally sound, weather tight and in good repair? Yes No
j) Contains a safe, adequate electrical wiring system? Yes No
k) Has adequate living space for the occupants? Yes No
1) Has a kitchen with a sink, hot and cold running water? Yes No
m) Has connections for a stove and refrigerator? Yes No
n) Has a separate complete bathroom with hot and cold running water? Yes No
o) Has heating as required by climatic conditions? Yes No
p) Has an unobstructed exit to safe open space at ground level? Yes No
q) Meets standards protecting occupants from lead based paint hazards? Yes No
r) If tenant is physically handicapped, is free of any barriers which
could preclude reasonable use of unit? Yes No
Generally, all answers in this section should be YES
Number of bedrooms in displaced dwelling:
Number of bedrooms in replacement dwelling:
If replacement dwelling is larger than displaced dwelling,
does family size indicate a need for a larger dwelling? Yes No
Fair Market Rent (CDBG manual):
Replacement Dwelling Rent (determined in Step 5):
Is replacement Dwelling Rent equal to or less than Fair Market Rent? Yes No
• If Yes, proceed to Step 7 entering the Replacement Dwelling Rent amount on line (1) of
Step 7.
• If No, proceed to Step 7 entering the Fair Market Rent amount on line (1) of Step 7.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM APPENDIX 9 107
MAY 1997
Step 7 Determine Rent and Utility Increase Payment
1. Enter Replacement Dwelling Rent or
Fair Market Rent as determined in Step 6: $
2. 30% of tenant's annual income
(determined in Step 2) divided by 12: $
3. Difference (subtract line (2) from line (1)):
4. Is line (3) $0.00 or less? Yes No
• If Yes, proceed to Step 8 (tenant does not qualify for Rent Utility Increase Payment.)
• If No, continue with Step 7.
5. Is tenant considered LMI? (refer to Step 4): Yes No
• If Yes, enter amount of line (3):
(a) multiply by 60: $
• If No, enter amount of line (3)
(b) multiply by 48: $
Enter the lesser of line 5(a) or 5(b) or $5,250.00: $
Step 8 Reasonable Out-of-Pocket Moving Expenses
There are two methods to determine out-of-pocket moving expenses. A community must decide
which method to utilize for all displaced tenants. The method used for the first displaced tenant
must be used for all subse uent tenant calculations.
Method 1: Accept receipts for actual expenses incurred
Add and total reasonable out-of pocket moving expenses.
Reasonable expenses include but are not limited to :
1. Transportation for tenant and family: $
2. Packing, moving and unpacking household goods: $
3. Disconnecting and reconnecting household appliances
4. and other personal property: $
5. Storage of household goods: $
6. $
7. $
TOTAL Actual out-of-pocket expenses $
Method 2 Utilize HUD moving expenses chart
(CDBGG manual) $
108 HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM APPENDIX 9
MAY 1997
STEP 9 Total Payment Due Displaced Tenant
1. Rent and Utility Increase payment (determined in Step 7).
Cannot exceed $5,250.00 $
2. Add: reasonable Out-of-Pocket Moving expenses
(Total from the preferred method in Step 8) $
3. Equals: TOTAL PAYMENT DUE DISPLACED TENANT:
(add line (1) and Line (2) $
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM APPENDIX 9 109
MAY 1997
LCEUTEI3 @)F "TIU lSEUTUL
DATE JOB NO.
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 I Z-4" _ Ocoo—Oro
Seattle,Washington 98121-2375 ATTENTION File NO
�j 1Jc o'7 U)C*kmo2tf
R TO �[ � o F /l��f0 ✓o 43 z P
WE ARE SENDING YOU pittached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:;,
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications idi tVd
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
w s o"sr- n�.4 �tiE T6 l�4TE
N M1
-Ft owl_,t,+G r Cos f f r ✓mac.vt
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Reviewed as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for review
For your use El Reviewed as noted ElSubmit copies for distribution
,KAs requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR B S DUE_ 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
SIGNED:
if enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
Rivenne FboG In/rastruclure Hazard Mapatron,SmeN Protects {' Venan 1.01,May 31.1995
RIVER/NE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE
Small Project Benefit-Cost Program Page 1
PROJECT INFORMATION
Disaster Number DR-1079-WA Project Mt.Vernon Flood Wall
DSR Number 349204,5 Address Mt. Vernon Levee
DSR Category 0 City, State, Zip Mt. Vernon
DSR Subject FLOOD F ING G County Skagit County
Inspection Date 0 Applicant Dike Dist.#3
Application Date September 17, 1996 Contact Person JDave Olson
Discount Rate (%) 1 7.00
Analysis Date ISeptember 21, 1996 Scenario Run ID 1
Analyst J. LaTOURELLE Save As File Name 1MVfloodwall
PROJECT DATA
Project Description Installation of a demountable floodwall on the existing levee for_a
distance of 1,600', and a height of 4'to 7'.
Project Useful Life (years) 50
Base Year of Costs 1996
Mitigation Project Cost
Total cost, including mitigation measure $600,000
Repair cost, to pre-disaster condition only $0
Net Mitigation Project Cost $600,000
Annual Maintenance Cost($/year) $1,000
Present Value of Annual Maintenance Cost($) $13,801
TOTAL NET MITIGATION PROJECT COST $613,801
FLOOD FREQUENCY AND DAMAGE ESTIMATES
Estimated Frequency of Declared Flood Event(Years) 100
SCENARIO DAMAGES BEFORE &AFTER MITIGATION
Flood Expected Estimated Damages Estimated Damages Avoided Damages
Frequency Annual Before Mitigation After Mitigation After Mitigation
(Years) Number of (per flood event) (per flood event) (per flood event)
Floods Direct Other Direct Other Direct Other
4 2.00E-01 146,000 0 146,000 0
20 3.67E-02 146,000 0 0 146,000 0
75 3.33E-03 146,000 0 0 146,000 0
100 5700 -03 $146,000 0 0 $146,000 0
200 3.00E-03 4,528,000 50 452,800 $4,075,200 0
500 2.00E-03 4,528,000 0 452,800 0 $4,075,200 0
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS
Expected Present
Annual Value
Expected Annual Damages Before Mitigation $58,405 $806,039
Expected Annual Damages After Mitigation $2,264 $31,239
Expected Avoided Damages After Mitigation (BENEFITS) $56,142 $774,800
PROJECT BENEFITS $774,800
PROJECT COSTS $613,801
BENEFITS MINUS COSTS $161,000
BENEFIT-COST RATIO 1.26
FEMA Disclaimer:The results produced by this analysis are neither conclusive evidence that a proposed project is cost-effective,nor a
guarantee that a project is eligible for any government grant for whatever purpose.
10121,1129 Goettel8 Aswcutes,2725 Donner Wey,Sacramento,GA 95818,(916)4514160
Rivenne Flood Infrastructure Hazard Wigation,Small Pmjects Version 1.01,May 31,1995
RIVERINE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE
Small Project Benefit-Cost Program: COMMENTS Page 2
Mt.Vernon Flood Wall Mt.Vernon Levee Mt.Vernon
Analyst J. LaTOURELLE Analysis Date September 21, 1996
1. Flood loss data is taken from the applicants documentation of benefits.
2. The mitigation measure is considered to be 90%effective at all flood levels.
I The damage estimates at the higher flood levels are from the CoE Draft Reconnaissance Report, May 1993
1021,11:29 Goettel d Associates,2725 Donner Way,Sacramento,CA 95818.(916)451-4160
q7 WED 14:16 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING um 001
t
PRE-PUBLICATION EIDTION
JANUARY 1996
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
of
HAZARD MITIGATION
PROJECTS
Post-ir Fax Note 7671 Dace pages
To S4-eVt SWdn56 From Ewers
Co/Dept_ Q Co. f_-M&
Phone# ^ Fhone(4G1?O O u
Fax# 11�jr 7 Fax# 7 O
RIVERINE FLOOD
INFRASTRUCTURE
USER'S GUIDE VERSION 1 .0
Applicable to Software Versions 1 .0x
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Mitigation Directorate
Hazard Mitigation Economic Program
04/23/97 WED 14: 16 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR 002
Table of Contents
The Riverine Flood Infrastructure Mini-Model Benefit-Cost Analysis Program . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Using the Infrastructure Mini-Model Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Using the Full Benefit-Cost Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
This "Mini-Model" User's Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Project Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Mitigation Project Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Total Cost, Including Mitigation Measure . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . 2
Repair Cost, to Pre-Disaster Condition 2
Net Mitigation Project Cost 2
Flood Frequency Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Flood Frequency Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Flood Frequency (Years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 3
Expected Annual Number of Floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Flood Exceedance Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Interval and Exceedance Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Scenario Damages Before & After Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Estimated Scenario Damages Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Estimated Scenario Damages: Direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . 5
Estimated Scenario Damages: Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 6
Avoided Damages After Mitigation: Direct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Avoided Damages After Mitigation: Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary of Project Benefits and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Project Benefits and Project Costs Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • 7
To Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Print the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Flood Hazard Risk: Technical Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • . • 8
Flood Recurrence Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Flood Exceedance Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . • • 8
Expected Annual Number of Floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Flood Elevation vs. Flood Depth . . . . . . . . • • . • . . . . • 9
Review of Scientific Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Print-Out of Riverine Flood Infrastructure Mini-Modell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 11
04/23/97 WED 14: 16 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR 003
VERSION 1.0 411/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
::T]heRiverine Flood Infrastructure Mini-Model
Benefit-Cost Analysis Program
Introduction
Using the This Riverine Flood Infrastructure Mini-Model Benefit-Cost
Infrastructure Analysis Program is intended to complement the use of the larger
Mini-Model Riverine Flood Benefit-Cost Analysis Program when the total cost of
Program the proposed mitigation and repair project does not exceed $43,600
and when a full Flood Insurance Study (or equivalent hydrologic and
hydraulic data) is not available. For example, such projects may
include upgrading an existing culvert to a larger size, upgrading a
pump, or waterproofing a transformer.
The "mini-model" may also be used to conduct a quick look or rough
screening of larger projects. However, use of this "mini-model" to
determine the cost-effectiveness of large projects is strongly
discouraged.
Using the Full For a proposed mitigation project whose total cost does exceed
Benefit-Cost $43,600, the Riverine Flood Benefit-Cost Analysis Program should
Program be used. This Program requires a greater range of data entry and
models flood probabilities and damages more accurately than in this
Infrastructure "mini-model" and thus provides a far more complete and
accurate bene-fit-cost analysis for a proposed hazard mitigation project.
This "Mini- For projects appropriate for analysis with this Infrastructure mini-
Model" User's model," several data entries are required which are slightly different
Manual from the entries contained in the Riverine Flood Program. Since these
entries may require explanation, they are presented in this user's guide.
For most entries, i.e., all entries not discussed below, please consult
the User's Guide to the Riverine Flood Benefit-Cost Analysis
Program.
1
04/23/97 WED 14: 17 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR R 004
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
PROJECTDATA
MITIGATION Mitigation Project Cost
Total cost, Including mitigation measure rrs�10;000
PROJECT COST Repair cost,to pre-disaster condition only x k5>i:00D,
Net Mitigation Project Cost 51,000
Annual Maintenance Cast(Styear) 0
Present Value of Annual Maintenance Cost(S) so
TOTAL NET MITIGATION PROJECT COST ' 51,1000
Total Cost, GREEN Block (Data Input). The total cost of the project includes the
Including cost of repair to pre-disaster condition (if applicable) and the cost of the
Mitigation proposed mitigation measure. In some cases, repair costs and
Measure mitigation project costs are co-mingled in Damage Survey Reports.
If the mitigation project cost is available separately, enter this value as
the total cost and enter n/a (for not applicable) for the repair cost.
Repair Cost, to GREEN Block (Data input). The repair cost includes only the cost to
Pre-Disaster restore the damaged structure to its pre-disaster condition without
Condition counting any proposed changes or upgrades. If the structure is
undamaged (no repair costs), enter 0.
Net Mitigation YELLOW Block (Result). The program calculates the Net Mitigation
Project Cost Project Cost from the difference between the Total cost, including
mitigation measure and the Repair cost, to pre-disaster condition
only.
2
04/23/97 WED 14: 17 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR 005
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
FLOOD FREQUENCY
Flood Frequency FLOOD
Table FREQUENCY
Flood Expected
Frequency Annual
(Years) Number of
Floods
7E1fi 4,1.00E-02 '
-VZ25V& -267E-02;
,A- 76V'& 3.33E-03
aJM0 i' 6:00E-03
-200'* ' 3.04E-03 '
Flood Frequency GREEN Blocks (Data Input). The Flood Frequency data entries
(Years) represent the recurrence intervals of various floods. One of the data
entries in the Flood Frequency (years) column should correspond to
the approximate frequency of the flood which caused the disaster.
Thus, at the specific site where the mitigation project is proposed, if the
recent flooding was estimated to occur approximately every 25 years,
no change in the GREEN Blocks need be made since 25 years is
already listed. However, if the recent flooding was estimated to occur
every 35 years, enter 35 in place of either the 25- or the 75-year flood
frequency and adjust other the flood frequency intervals as desired.
While all six of these numbers can be changed by the user, the flood
frequency data MUST be entered in increasing order, from,the smallest
to the largest flood frequency (i.e., years).
Expected Annual YELLOW Blocks (Results). In the yellow column next to the Flood
Number of Frequency data entries, the program calculates and displays the
Floods Expected Annual Number of Floods for each row in the Flood Data
Table. In each case, these probabilities represent the probabilities of all
floods between two entries in the Flood Frequency data entries.
Thus, in the example shown above, the probability shown to the right of
"25 years" represents all floods between 25 years and 75 years in
frequency. The annual probability of this range of floods is calculated
as the difference between the annual exceedance probability of a 25-
year flood and the annual exceedance probability of a 75-year flood
(e.g., 1125 - 1175, or 0.040 - 0.0133 = .0267 or 2.67E-02).
3
04/23/97 FED 14: 17 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR 006
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
The estimates of the Expected Annual Number of Floods are shown
in scientific notation because these numbers may vary over an
extremely wide range, including very small numbers. For an
explanation of scientific notation, see the Technical Appendix to this
chapter.
The Expected Annual Number of Floods (for each flood frequency
range) corresponds closely to the Annual Probabilities of floods.
Expected Annual Number does not mean that this number of floods
occurs every year, but rather "expected" indicates the long term
statistical average number (probability) of floods per year.
Flood Flood probabilities are often expressed as exceedance probabilities.
Exceedance An exceedance probability means the probability of all floods greater
Probabilities than or equal to some specified flood. Thus, the annual exceedance
probability for a 25-year flood means the annual probability for all floods
greater than or equal to the 25-year flood. The commonly used term,
"100-year flood," is actually an exceedance probability. In other words,
the 100-year flood level with an annual probability of 0.01 means all
floods greater than or equal to this level.
Interval and To avoid confusion, the distinction between interval probabilities and
Exceedance exceedance probabilities must be clearly made. The interval
Probabilities probability of a flood at exactly (within plus or minus 0.5 feet) the 100-
year flood level will be smaller (sometimes much smaller) than the
exceedance probability for a 100-year flood, because the exceedance
probability includes ALL floods greater than or equal to the 100-year
flood.
The probabilities shown in the Expected Annual Number of Floods
column are interval probabilities for the ranges of flood frequencies
entered in the Flood Frequency data column.
For further discussion of interval and exceedance probabilities, see the
Technical Appendix.
4
04/23/97 WED 14: 18 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESS[\G CTR [3j007
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine infrastructure
SCENARIO DAMAGES BEFORE
MITIGATION
Estimated 4. 1 0
Scenario :LPj1lQ0 �-
Damages Table Flood Expected Estimated Damages Estimated Damages Avoided Damages
Frequency Annual Before.Mitigation After Mitigation After Mitigation
(Years) Number of (per flood event) (per flood event) (per flood event
Floods Direct Other Direct Other Direct Other
.r+.t E +tt "ss�ar. r� ':t4s.�s, ia-w:>i•�°R"-a�, _r.aw•..�:- ..-..
267E-0Z r>gsyfr ,Ss'�yFt- :ax• r..e: Z0.
76s=. 3.57E-03 c v=b000 7;si 000 we wh: r .�-..r�ti;+ 000 i1 000
100
60p 2.00E •'-$6.000 . 00 lr=fi S 00000
200 3A f
00 7$K000•03
"�°iaC00 i0
The Direct and Other costs of the Estimated Damages Before
Mitigation, the Estimated Damages After Mitigation, and the
Avoided Damages After Mitigation are defined in the following
sections.
Estimated GREEN Blocks (Data Input). For Estimated Scenario Damages
Scenario Before and After Mitigation in the Direct column, enter the damages
Damages: Direct which are estimated to occur to the facility itself(e.g., a culvert). In
most cases, these damages will vary (increase) as the flood frequency
increases. For example, damages in a 25-year flood will often be
greater than those in a 10-year flood and less than those in a 75-year
flood.
In many cases, damages will be zero up to some flood frequency (if the
facility can handle that severity of flood without damage) and then
increase as the facility's capacity is exceeded. If the proposed
mitigation project is effective in reducing damages, then the estimated
Scenario Damages After Mitigation will be less (for at least some flood
frequencies) than the estimated Scenario Damages Before Mitigation.
However, in extreme floods (e.g., 500 years) the mitigation may not
prevent failure of the facility and thus the Before and After damages
may be the same at some flood frequencies.
The estimated Scenario Damages Before and After Mitigation MUST
accurately reflect the estimated performance of the facility before and
after mitigation or the benefit-cost analysis will be invalid..
5
04/23/97 EYED 14: 18 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR 008
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
Estimated GREEN Blocks (Data Input). For Estimated Scenario Damages
Scenario Before and After Mitigation in the Other column, enter the damages
Damages: Other which are estimated for areas or facilities affected by the project's
failure (e.g., the damages which occurred due to flooding when a
culvert failed). "Direct Damages" are those to the facility itself, while
"Other Damages" or those that arise as a consequence of failure of the
facility itself.
For example, if a culvert washes out, the "Direct" damages are the
costs of replacing the culvert and roadway. The Other damages are
any other damages such as flooding of houses or costs associated with
alternative transportation routes because of the "Direct" damages.
Avoided YELLOW Blocks (Results). For Avoided Scenario Damages After
Damages After Mitigation in the Direct column, the program calculates the difference
Mitigation: between the Estimated Damages Before Mitigation and the
Direct Estimated Damages After Mitigation for Direct costs, as defined
above.
Avoided YELLOW Blocks (Results). For Avoided Scenario Damages After
Damages After Mitigation in the Other column, the program calculates the difference
Mitigation: Other between the Estimated Damages Before Mitigation and the
Estimated Damages After Mitigation for Other costs, as defined
above.
The Avoided Damages (Direct and Other) are the Benefits (for each
flood frequency) of the mitigation project.
6
04/23/97 WED 14: 18 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR Cj009
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS AND COSTS
Project Benefits - •
and Project Expected
ld Valuer
Costs Table Expected Annual Damages Before Mitigation
Expected Annual Damages After Mitigation S18 `sS248
Expected Avoided Damages After Mitigation(BENEFITS) =i79 ' • :X31 090
PROJECT BENEFITS � S7"090
PROJECT COSTS -,,,••Si 000
BENEFITS MINUS COSTS ''''' ` ' 90
BENEFIT-COST RATIO F ='I �9
At this point, the mini-Benefit-Cost Analysis is complete. The
Summary of Benefits and Costs section presents the Benefit-Cost
Results. For a detailed explanation, please see the Riverine Flood
User's Guide Version 1.0, pages 9-12 to 9-14.
To Continue... This completes the Riverine Flood Infrastructure Small Project
Benefit-Cost Program data entry process except for the Comments
section. All data sources, engineering judgements, and data entries
made for the project under evaluation should be documented as fully as
possible. To enter comments, select Comments from the Benefit-Cost
Program menu.
B-C Analysis of Hz;i
File Data Comments Print
COMMENTS
PINK Block (information Only). Enter detailed information on the
source of engineering and flood data, cost estimates, and all other
pertinent information for the project under evaluation. These comments
provide documentation in the event of disputes or appeals.
Print the Report Click on PRINT in the Menu to print the two-page report.
7
04/23/97 WED 14: 19 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR ( j010
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
Flood Hazard Risk: Technical Appendix
Flood Floods are a probabilistic natural phenomenon: it is impossible to
Recurrence predict in what years floods will occur or how severe the floods will be.
Intervals Flood hazards are often expressed in terms of flood frequencies or
recurrence intervals, such as a 10-year flood or a 100-year flood.
A "l 00-year" flood means that there is a 1% chance per year of a flood
at the 100-year or higher flood elevation. A 10-year flood means that
there is a 10% chance per year of a flood of the 10-year or higher flood
elevation. In general, the annual probability of a flood of X-years is 1/X.
Thus, the annual probability of an 83-year flood is 1/83 or 0.012.
Flood recurrence intervals do not mean that floods occur exactly at
these intervals; rather they only express the probabilities of floods.
Thus, a given location may experience two 100-year floods in a short
time period or go several decades without experiencing a 10-year flood.
Flood recurrence intervals (in years) and annual flood probabilities
contain exactly the same probabilistic information. The previous
paragraphs explained how to convert recurrence intervals in years into
annual probabilities. Conversely, annual probabilities can be converted
to recurrence intervals. The recurrence interval in years of a flood
depth with Y annual probability is 1/Y. For example, the recurrence
interval for a flood with an annual probability of 0.01234 is 1/0.01234 or
81 years.
In the benefit-cost program, flood probabilities are expressed in terms of
annual probabilities. If desired, these probabilities can be converted to
recurrence intervals by the procedure discussed above.
Flood The Expected Annual Number of Floods for each flood depth
Exceedance correspond closely to Annual Probabilities of floods. Such probabilities
Probabilities are interval probabilities; that is, they express the probabilities for each
flood depth. For example, in the Benefit-Cost Program, the annual
probability of a 2-foot flood is considered to be the annual probability for
all floods between 1.5 and 2.5 feet of depth at that site.
Flood probabilities are often expressed as exceedance probabilities.
An exceedance probability means the probability of all floods greater
than or equal to some specified flood. Thus, the annual exceedance
probability for a 2-foot flood means the annual probability for all floods
greater than or equal to 2 feet.
8
04/23/97 WED 14: 19 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR ( ]011
VERSION 1.0 4/1/95 B-C. Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
To avoid confusion, the distinction between interval probabilities and
exceedance probabilities must be clearly made. The commonly used
term, "100-year flood," is actually an exceedance probability. In other
words, the 100-year flood level with an annual probability of 0.01 means
all floods greater than or equal to this level. The interval probability of a
flood at exactly (within plus or minus 0.5 feet) the 100-year flood level
will be smaller (sometimes much smaller) than the exceedance
probability for a 100-year flood, because the exceedance probability
includes ALL floods greater than or equal to the 100-year flood.
For completeness, the benefit-cost program tabulates both exceedance
probabilities and interval probabilities, although all calculations are done
using the interval probabilities.
Expected The flood frequency data (i.e., 10, 50, 100, or 500 years) correspond to
Annual Number exceedance probabilities (see Flood Recurrence intervals on page 8).
of Floods
This analysis gives the Annual Exceedance Probability for all floods,
in one-foot increments of depth. From the Annual Exceedance
Probabilities, calculated as described above, the Expected Annual
Number of Floods in a given one-foot increment are calculated from
the difference in exceedance probabilities of two flood depths. For
example, the expected annual number for a 2-foot flood (i.e., all floods
between 1.5 and 2.5 feet) at a given site (with a given Zero Flood
Depth Elevation) is calculated as the exceedance probability for a 1.5-
foot flood minus the exceedance probability for a 2.5-foot flood.
In the main Riverine Flood Benefit-Cost Model, the Expected Annual
Number of Floods is calculated in one-foot increments. In the
Infrastructure Mini-Model, the Expected Annual Number of Floods is
calculated for the range of flood frequencies shown in the Flood Data
Table, without reference to flood depths.
Flood Elevation For a given flood (e.g., a 100-year flood), the elevation of the flood
vs. Flood Depth water surface varies with location along the stream as shown by the
Flood Profile (see Riverine Flood User's Guide, pages 7-2 to 7-4).
Furthermore, at a given location along the stream the flood depth
corresponding to a 100-year flood varies depending on the Zero Flood
Depth Elevation of the building under evaluation. In the Benefit-Cost
Program, the Expected Annual Number of Floods are shown for
each flood depth from -2 to 18 feet for the building under evaluation.
For a different building with a different Zero Flood Depth Elevation,
the Expected Annual Number of Floods for each flood depth will: be
different. Thus, for example, the depth of a 100-year flood will differ for
buildings at different Zero Flood Depth Elevations.
9
04/23/97 WED 14:20 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR ?012
VERSION 1.0 411195 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine Infrastructure
Flood depths are calculated and used in the main Riverine Flood
benefit-cost program, but not in the infrastructure Mini-Model.
Review of The annual probabilities of floods are expressed in scientific notation
Scientific because the probabilities may vary from nearly 1 to much less than 1 in
Notation a million (0.000001). Scientific notation is a widely-used convenient
method of expressing numbers which vary over a very wide range.
In scientific notation, as in the Calculated Annual Probability of
Floods table, numbers are expressed in two parts: a prefix and a
power of 10. For example, 6E+02, where 6 is the prefix and +02 is the
power of 10, means 6 times 102, or 6 times 100, or 600.
Another way of thinking about scientific notation is that the power of 10
part of the number tells which direction and how much to move the
decimal place. Thus, 6E+02 is 6 with the decimal placed moved to
places to the positive (right) direction or 600. Thus, 6E+03 is 6000.
Scientific notation with negative powers of ten means to move the
decimal place to the negative (left) direction. Thus, 6E-02 is 0.06; 6E-
03 is 0.006 and so on. E+00, means don't move the decimal place.
Thus, 6E+00 is simply 6.
Scientific notation may seem cumbersome with routine numbers, but it
is very convenient when numbers are very large or very small or to
compare the relative sizes of very large or small numbers. Thus, 6E-
11 is a more convenient way of expressing 0.00000000006.
10
04/23/97 WED 14:20 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR f 013
VERSION 1.0 4/1195 B-C Mini-Model: Riverine infrastructure
PRINT-OUT: RIVERINE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE MINI-MODEL
The following two pages contain an example print-out of the mini-model.
11
04/23/97 WED 14: 20 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR ?Ot4
Ra f,n-e'Oft'a a.-am M*9~
RIVERINE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE Page 'S
Small Project Benefit-Cost Program
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Ci Office Annex
Address 55 A Street
City, State, Ip Cape Squirrel, VA 22222
Owner City of Cape Squirrel
Contact Person Sam Smith, City Manager
Disaster Number FEMA-000-DR-VA
Project Number 123456
Application Date January 1, 1994
Discount Rate (%) 7
Scenario Run ID 1
Analyst Goettel &Homer
PROJECT DATA
Project Description Install culvert: 24 in place of 18"
50
Project Useful Life(years) 1994
Base Year of Casts
Mitigation Project Cost E
10,00
Total cost,including mitigation measure E $$91'0000000
,
Repair cost,to pre-disaster condition only
Net Mitigation Project Cost EEE3001
Annual Maintenance Cost($/year)
Present Value of Annual Maintenance Cost W $1,000
TOTAL NET MITIGATION PROJECT COST
FLOOD
FREQUENCY SCENARIO DAMAGES BEFORE &AFTER MITIGATION
Flood Expected Estimated Damages Estimated Damages Avoided
ter Mitigations
Frequency Annual Before Mitigation After Mitigation er flood event)
(Years) Number of (per flood event) (per flood event) ( Other
Floods Direct Other Direct Other Direct 0 0
.0 -02 0
.67 -0 5, 00 00
7 0 00 5,000 2,000
0 5. 5,0 ,00 5 00 ,000
0 3 5'0 0 ,0 .000 0
$ 0
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS Expected Present
Annual Value
S97 $1,339
Expected Annual Damages Before Mitigation $18 $248
Expected Annual Damages After Mitigation $79 $1'090
Expected Avoided Damages After Mitigation (BENEFITS)
Lam— $1,090
PROJECT BENEFITS $1,000
PROJECT COSTS $90
BENEFITS MINUS COSTS ,�-Q9
BENEFIT-COST RATIO
=J
o f ehn CCU-01 8COVE,not•rWYW�rs n•i,f+�t car+dwly�rvldr,c•thrt•ptoPa P+al+���
ff31A pisd•Inrr.TM nauna pvducW �
w4ww ""a P��is6410bl•for 0"Qo,t•n+� Wom lot vt"tr+W P++r7rMR
a.rr•r+.w,+,�zra oa.rw.r. G 0810.A+al4•,a,eo
owl.13,19 12
04/?3/97 WED 14: 21 FAX 1 9 206 806 2733 REG 10 PROCESSING CTR Z 015
Flh�Fbaa Wfte"Ac.M M-1 ►1AlOMOn.SMI Prof varmn 1.0.Awd I.InA
RIVERINE FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE
Small Project Benefit-Cost Program: COMMENTS Page 2
City Office Annex 55 A Street Cape Squirrel,VA 22222
Analyst iGoettel &Horner !� Scenario Run ID 1
13
ouoa txs+ 0000•Fbllrr W—vm oaw wrr.s mr1�1b G�es1�,MQ uu1s0
MEMORANDUM
1
To: Scott Woodbury, P.E. ■ City of Renton 4 t ►±"yam
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055 �I
JAN 27 '1997 Di
From: Mike Giseburt, R.W. BeckwAg
CITY OF RE[VTC1�I
Subject: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Engineering Dept
Date: January 24, 1997
Please find attached a copy of a Hazard Mitigation Grant Application for the City of Mount
Vemon/Diking District No. 3. The application was submitted following the declaration of a federal
disaster. If you have an interest in this program, I suggest you contact Marry Best, the State Hazard
Mitigation Officer at (360) 923 - 4585 to see if he thinks the SW 43rd Street project would be eligible
(or, if you would like I could contact Marty). We have talked with Marty on several occasions
regarding the Mount Vernon Project.
Please give me a call at 727-4607 if you have any questions.
/N 4IJ hAd
File:0000000-60311-6500
C:\RENT0N\MMSWl24.D0C
Fc
May 1-9, 1996
Mr. Martin Best
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Hazard tilitigation Grant Program Administration
State of Washington 'Military Department
Emergency Management
P.O. Box 40955
Olympia, WA 98504-0955
Re: Hazard vlitiaation Grant Program
`fount Vernon Flood Wall
Dear Mr. Best:
Dike District Rio. 3 appreciates that the federal government has made funding available for
projects designed to achieve flood hazard mitigation goals. Our proposed Mount Vernon
Flood Wall project will help protect the densely populated area of downtown Mount Vernon.
as well as the area to the south through the town of Conwav to Skagit Bay. This project will
significantly reduce the need for sandbagging along the existing dike through downtown
Mount Vernon. Flood fighting is currently performed by Dike District No. 3. the City of
Mount Vernon, and Skagit County during a 10 year or greater flood event. The project.
having a total cost of approximately 5600.000, would protect an area with a total assessed
value of S160.621.325. Expected annual flood damages are estimated at 54.528.000.
Even though the benefits of the project are high relative to the cost. Dike District No. 3
recognizes that there are limited funds available in any one funding source. Therefore, the
District has made an effort to fund the project with multiple resources, including funds from
the Flood Control Assistance Account Program, Cite of Mount Vernon resources. Dike
District N'o. 3, and the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development. `Ve have allocated percentages of the total project cost in proportion to the
amount of funding that is available from each of these sources at this time. Again. the Dike
District feels that this proiect is extremely important and will greatly benefit the community.
Very truly yours.
Dave Olson
Dike District No. 3
1637 Torset Road
Mount Vernon. WA 98273
(360) 445-3373
WASHINGTON STATE
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Camp Murray, Tacoma,WA 98430-5122
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FEMA-1079-DR-WA (WINTER STORMS 199-4)
The following checklist is designed to assist you to insure ALL portions of the application are completed.
Applicants must complete each section listed below to be considered for Hazard Mitigation grant funding.
Narrative questions must be answered on separate sheets, labeled with the appropriate section and question
number. Any questions may be directed to Martin Best, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, at(360) 923-4585.
1. Applicant Data
2. Applicant's Agent Information
3. Certification and Assurance
4. Project Description/Site Location Maps
(include sections of local plans as needed)
5. Project Budget and Funding Sources
6. Project Cost
7. Estimated Schedule for Project Completion
8. Selection of the Best Project Alternative
9. State and Federal Elimbiliry `/
10. Em-ironmenial Data ✓
11. Proof of Private Nonprofit Incorporation and Tax-Exempt �
12. Resolution Desianating an Applicant's Agent
DATED MATERIAL! ! !
This application MUST be postmarked by MAY 31, 1996, to be considered eligible for
possible funding.
WINTERSTORMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Progarn Application 1
February 1996
WASHINGTON STATE
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY *MANAGEMENT
Camp Murray, Tacoma.WA 98430-513_
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGR-kM
GRANT APPLICATION
FEMA-1079-DR-WA (WIN, TER STORMS 1995)
SECTION 1. APPLICANT DATA
Applicant Name: Dike Distnct#3
Project Title: Mount Vernon Flood Wall
Federal Tax ID 91-1341675
Basis of Applicant Eligibility:
State Government Local Government
X Special Purpose District Registered Private Nonprofit With Like Government Semites
Indian Tribe Other
SECTION '-. APPLICANT'S AGENT LN1 F0RNL4TI0N
The Applicant's Agent is the designated contact who has been authorized to apply for and receive grant funding.
For clear and direct communication, agencies may want to make this the same person who will have project
management responsibility if grant funding is awarded. To proNide continuity and ease of grant administration.
the Washington State Military Depar,ment/Emergency Management would like to work with a single point of
contact throughout the application, award. and reimbursement process. Formal designation of an Applicant's
Agent must be made using the enclosed form.
Please Type Applicant Agent's
Name: Dave Olson
Title: Dike District #3 Commissioner
Telephone: (360) 445-3375
Address: 1637 Torset Road
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
wtNTERSTORMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Progarn Application 2
February 1996
SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION AND ASSURANCE
As the duly authorized agent of the applicant, I certify that the information provided below in this application is
true and correct. I further assure that the applicant will comply with all applicable state and federal regulations
pertaining to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
As the duly authorized agent of the applicant, I will acquire all necessary permits and approvals if the proposed
project is awarded Hazard Mitigation Grant funds, and I recognize that failure to comply with all of the applicable
state and federal regulations may be grounds for the revocation of current, or the denial of future, Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program funding.
I also understand the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Levee Policy for projects that involve levees, dikes and
other flood control structures. That as a condition of consideration for, and receipt of, any Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (FINIGP) funds for a proposed levee/dike project, the levee/dike system within the applicant's jurisdiction
must be brought up to, and maintained to, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee standards.
Additionally, the jurisdiction must make application to the USACE within two (2) years to have the jurisdictions
systems inspected and accepted into the USACE inventory.
Failure to comply with these conditions following the acceptance of any grant funds will cause the funds to be
eligible for immediate recapture by the state of Washington. Additionally, until the system is brought up to the
USACE levee standards, the levee system may be ineligible for any additional federal disaster assistance repair and
restoration funds in the event of future disaster events.
Authorized Signature �'_���2F/� �-` L/— Date
SECTION 4. PROJECT (PREFERRED ALTERtiAM-E) DESCRIPTION / SITE LOCATION NLAPS
1. Project Title: Mount Vernon Flood Wall
2. Project Location: (Legal description [Section/Township/Range) -please attach site map)
Section 19, Township 34N, Range 4E
(See attached Figure)
3. Please pro,.ide the Federal Congressional District, and the State Legislative District in which the project is
physically located:
Federal 2 State 10
4. Proiect Goal: To reduce the need for sandbagging in downtown Mount Vernon, lessen the risk or
flood damage, and free up flood-fighting resources during flood events to help in other areas.
WINTERSTORMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
February 1996
SECTION 4. PROSECT(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) DESCRIPTION (Continued)
5. Describe the proposed project, its objectives, and what is being protected. A more detailed Droject
iustification statement is reouired in Section 8. For construction projects, please include relevant
location, site maps, and an aerial overview. Be as concise as possible and please include any technical
drawings to aid the Grant Review Committee in understanding the project. If you need more room to
answer this question, please attach a separate sheet.
The proposed project consists of a flood wall on top of the dike along the Skagit River behind
the parking revetment in downtown Mount Vernon. The flood wall would start at the West
Mount Vernon bridge and extend south for about 1,600 feet. Currently, the dike and revetment
are overtopped during a 10-year flood event, requiring Dike District No. 3, Skagit County, and
the City of Mount Vernon to carry out a significant flood-fighting effort, which has included
sandbagging up to 4 feet of water. Relying on flood-fighting efforts to protect the City has
resulted in additional risk of flooding because the Skagit River responds fairly rapidly to
hydrological events and, typically, there is only about 24 hours of notice between the time sand
bagging starts and the time the water is on the bag line. The flood wall would extend from 5 to
7 feet high depending on the ground elevation along the alignment. This would provide
protection for the 100-year flood event with about 1.5 feet of freeboard. Note that portions of
the wall will be permanent, except in areas designated for vehicle and pedestrian access. The
flood wall would serve to protect the highly populated downtown business district and residents,
as well as an area south of Mount Vernon through Conway to Skagit Bay. The total assessed
value of this area is about S160,621,325 with the expected annual flood damages estimated at
S4,528,000 (Corps of Engineers Draft Reconnaissance Report, May 1993, see attached).
Unlike the sand bags, a flood wall would be relatively quick to erect and dismantle, is reusable,
and would be designed to withstand water levels up to the 100-year flood level. In addition, this
project would offset the cost of the sandbags and labor that has been estimated at about
S47,820 for the 1995 flood event. Also, the flood wall would be installed in the densely
populated downtown area of the City where the facility would have no environmental impact.
The Dike District realizes that the project has a high benefit/cost ratio, but that there are limited
funds available in any one funding program. Therefore, the Dike District is asking the
Washington State Community, Trade and Economic Development's Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program to fund only 30 percent of the cost of this project. The Dike District has entered into a
joint agreement with the City of Mount Vemon to fund this project and the City has applied to
the Washington State Flood Control Account Assistance Program (FCAAP) to provide a
50 percent match on the total cost of the project. The City and Dike District will each contribute
10 percent to fund the remaining 20 percent of the project.
6. Is this a site covered under or connected to a Damage Survey Report (DSR) under the Repair and
Restoradon Program of PL 93-28B, as amended?Yes X No If so, give DSR number.
DSR No. 349205 S61,782
DSR No. 349204 $1,228
7. One of the problems the program has encountered in receiving approval of funding from FENLA has been
the lack of public involvement in selecting the preferred alternative. Describe and provide documentation
of public involvement in the selection of this preferred alternative.
To our knowledge, the Flood Wall Project was first identified in the General Design
Memorandum completed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1975. There were several public
meetings held and incorporated into this document.
The Flood Wall Project is also included in the 1993 Flood Damage Reduction Study by the Army
Corps of Engineers. Public hearings were also held and incorporated into this document.
WRvTERSTORMS 1995 4
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
February 1996
SECTION 4. PROJECT (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) DESCRIPTION (Continued)
Mount Vernon Public Works Committee Meeting. This meeting was advertised in the local
papers, along with the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Merchants Association handing
out flyers announcing the Public Meeting. More information on this public hearing is contained in
Section S.A. of this application.
WIINTERSTORMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Progrurn Application 1
February 1996
SECTION c. PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES
A. Estimated Total Project Costs
Preliminary Engineering Report S 10.000
Design Engineering (P.S.E.) 40.000
Land/R-O-W Acquisition 0
Sales or Use Takes 38,000
Inspection/Construction 20,000
Construction 492,000
Other
Total Estimated Costs $600,000
B. Non-Applicant (Outside Sources) Project Funds
1. What other attempts have been made to finance this project? Identify other funding you have
applied for and the current status of that application or award. The status of your project
with other funding sources should be verified in writing whenever possible. Also, If you have not
applied for other funding sources, please explain why.
Dike District No. 3 and the City of Mount Vemon have committed 20 percent of the
project costs. The City has applied for a 50 percent match on the total project costs from
the FCAAP program. There are no other funding opportunities that we are aware of at
this time that could be applied for.
2 Please identify any funds, other than Hazard Mitigation Grant funds, that are committed to the
project. We realize that projects are often funded in phases and that a Hazard Mitigation Grant
may fund just one phase or aspect of the project. Also, funds from other grant or loan programs
are often packaged to provide complete funding of the entire project.
1. Other federal funds: $ (Local Match) $
From:
2. Other state funds: S300,000 (Local Match) S75.000
From: FCAAP (Through the City From Dike
of Mount Vernon) District and
City
3. Other: City of Mount Vernon $45,000
& Dike District No. 3
From: City Utility & Dike District
Funds
Total Non-Applicant Funds $420,000
3. If applicable, describe any constraints on the sources listed above, in question 5.B.1. and 5.B.2..
on a separate sheet.
The City of Mount Vemon is waiting for notification from FCAAP on the application for a
50 percent match on the total project cost. The Dike District and the City have entered
into an agreement to jointly fund the project.
WINTERSTOPUMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 5
February 1996
SFCTION 5. PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES (Continued)
C. Applicant Funding Source(s)
Please identif}-the source(s) of your share* for the FDAGP amount of the proiiect:
General Funds S60,000
Capital Reserves so
Federal. State, or Private Loans— s0
Rates so
Assessments (UL EDs, LIDS, R Ds) s0
Special Leiies s0
Other: City of Mount Vernon s60,000
Total Applicant Funds $120,000
Applicant Participation Funding Percentage 67%
(DiNide the total applicant funds above by the total HIv1GP portion of the project)
'applicant participation must equal,at a minimum, 12.5 percent of the Hazard%litigation portion of the project
'*Federal,;save or private loans are considered applicant participation,to the extent thev are repaid with applicant-generated revenues.
Note: The 115 percent applicant snare must come from a non-federal source (with the exception of Community Development Block Grant
funds).
D. Impact of Non-Selection
If a Hazard tilitigauon grant is not prodded, or delayed, what impact «ill this have on the timing of
your project- and particularly your ability to utilize alternate funds committed to this project"
If the Hazard Mitigation grant is not provided or delayed, and if the FCAAP grant application
through the City is successful, FCAAP will have to determine if the state funds can be used to
construct a portion of the project. If the Hazard Mitigation grant is provided, but the FCAAP
grant is not, the Hazard Mitigation grant program will need to determine if the funds can be used
for a portion of the project. Without any grant funds, the project will be delayed.
SECTION 6. PROJECT COST-EFFECTIVENESS
In order to fund Hazard Mitigation Grant projects, the federal government requires that the project's benefits,
over the life of the project, exceed the project's costs. Life of the project, or life-cycle, costs include the
consuuction, operation, and maintenance costs that «ill occur over the life of the project. The benefits that «ill
occur over the life of the project include the cumulative costs of the damage to protected properr: the associated
costs that will be avoided by construction of the project: past actual damages; value of private and public property
and resources being protected: reduced maintenance costs: loss of revenue: esumates of income lost through road
closures: etc.
WiNTERSTORNIS 1995 6 Hazard`litigation Grant Program application
February 1996
SECTION 6 PROJECT COST-EFFECTIVENESS (Continued)
A. Cost-to-Benefit Narrative
Plcase discuss each of the following issues:
1. Describe the useful life and the life-cycle cost of the proposed project.
The project has a projected useful life of at least 50 years. Yearly maintenance is
estimated at approximately S1,000/year.
2. Pro,zde documentation on the value of the property that would be protected by the proposed
project.
The Corps of Engineers Draft Reconnaissance Report, May 1993, identified two
economic subareas that would flood due to this section of dike. These two areas are
subareas 6 and 7 of the report and have a 1992 assessed value of $160,621,325 (see
attached page).
3. Provide information on the specific documented damages during the recent event, and
historically, that can be attributed to the lack of this project.
With the existing condition, the Corps 1993 Reconnaissance Report study estimated
average annual damage at S4,528,000 for the two subareas. This is directly attributable
to this section of dike. The estimated cost for flood fighting in 1995 is S50,000. This
cost is similar for every flood event where sandbagging is required to protect the City.
Sandbagging of the revetment has, in recent memory, been necessary in 1995, 1990,
1985, 1979, and 1975, or once every 4 years on average. There are also other damages
associated with flood fighting and economic impacts from sandbagging as well.
4. Estimate the dollar amount of damaee and associated costs that would be prevented as a direct
result of the proposed project over its useful `life.
The Corps of Engineers does not consider the damage reduction resulting from
flood-fighting efforts because these efforts are considered unreliable. Therefore,
according to the Corps studies, the estimated average annual flood damage of
S4,528,000 would be offset by this project. Flood fighting is not a reliable way of
providing flood protection (the Corps 1993 Reconnaissance Report, pg. 46). The
sandbags have held up to 4 feet of water. In 1990, the water level was within 6 inches of
the top of the sandbags. Had this overtopped, one could expect damages well in excess
of the above-stated average annual damage.
If we consider damage reduction from previous flood-fighting efforts, then the majority of
the sandbagging costs, other damage, and economic impacts to businesses would be
prevented by this project. Over the 50-year projected useful life of the facility, the
sandbag wall would not need to be erected once every 4 years or approximately
12.5 times. The cost of erecting the sandbag wall is S50,000. The cost to area
businesses that are impacted by the sandbag walls is $39,000. Other damage to utilities
and clean-up costs from the sandbag wall are S56,700. This amounts to a total of
S145,700 per occurrence. Given the 12.5 times this wall will be erected over the life of
the project, S1,821,250 would be offset by this project.
�. Compare the life-cycle cost of the project with the anticipated value of the damage reduction
benefits that will be achieved over the life of the project.
The total life-cycle cost = S600,000 + 50 ($1,000) = S650,000.
If we do not consider the flood fighting to be effective, the anticipated benefit is
$4,528,000. If we consider the flood-fighting effort to be effective, the anticipated
benefit equals S145,700 every 4 years for 50 years = S1,821,250.
WINTERSTORNIS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 7
February 1996
SECTION 6 PROJECT COST-EFFECTTVENESS (Continued)
B. Cost-To-Benefit Data
BENEFIT/COST INTUT WORKSHEET
The following basic information is needed to run a Benefit/Cost Analysis for IUAGP (404) riverine and coastal
flood projects:
Total Cost of Project: S600,000
HIviGP Project Amount(If different than above): S180,000
Construction Date(of damaged facilitv): March 1997
Total Contents Value: S160,621,325
Loss of BusinessAncome: $39 000 per occurrence x 12.5 occurrences over the useful life = S487,500
Annual Maintenance Costs(S/vear): S1,000/year
Previous Disaster Damages: S50,000 + S56,700 = $106,700 per occurrence x 12.5 occurrences
over the useful life = S1.333.750
Total Benefits* of Project:$4,528,000 - Using the Corps criteria of discounting flood fighting.
$1,821,250 - Using actual costs of constructing the sandbag wall
and associated damage and business impacts over
the useful life of the proiect.
Flood Frequency Data for Project Site:
Flood Frequency Discharge Elevation
(vears) (CFS) I (ft)
10 117.000 28.5
50 I 152,000 I 32.4
100 I 178.000 34.2
500 ( 251,000 38.6
Zero Flood Elevation: 28.2
Fill in applicable items, as not all items will apply to each project.
'Benefits may include: Past actual damages, future damages in area that will be mitigated over the life of the project, value of private and public
property and resources being protected_reduced maintenance costs,etc.Please demorutr-ste on a separate pave how you arrived at the beneSu.
WiNTERSTORMS 1995
Hazed Mitigation Grant Program Application 8
February 1996
SECTION 7. ESTINIATED SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION
It is our desire for projects to move quickly in all phase of the process. Those projects that cannot begin shortly
after FENtA funding approval may not be eligible. Estimate the month and year when the acti,.zties listed were or
will be completed.
Estimated Completion Date
Grant Contract Signed September 30, 1996
Preliminary Engineering Report November 15, 1996
Required Permits Obtained November 15, 1996
Design Engineering December 30, 1996
Land R/W Acquisition None
Prepare Bid Documents January 15, 1997
Award Construction Contract March 30, 1997
Begin Construction April 30, 1997
Complete Construction July 30, 1997
Project in Use Flood Season 1997
This is an aggressive but very doable schedule due to time limit on FCAAP funding.
NOTE: The followincy sections are the scored portions of the application. Please make your
NARRATIVE answers as concise, but as complete, as possible. Yes/.No answers will be
considered as "Unanswered" questions. Applications that fail to answer a sufficient number
of questions may be deemed ineligible and not processed.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE SCORED!
SECTION 8. SELECTION OF THE BEST PROTECT ALTERNATIVE
A. Demonstrate through a WRITTEN NARRATIVE that, after consideration of a number of alternatives,
(from-no action to the most elaborate solution), that the project submitted for consideration is the most
practical. effective. and emironmentally sound.
Describe how this project was selected over other possible alternatives and why it represents the
best solution to the problem. Please take special effort to explain how the selected alternative, and all
other alternatives. will impact the environment. FENIA requires a narrative discussion of at least
THREE (3) alternatives and their impacts (beneficial and detrimental). Also, describe how this project
meets the objectives of your local hazard damage reduction plan.
WINTERSTORMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 9
February 1996
SECTION R. SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVE (Continued)
Be sure to include documentation of puhlic involvement in the altcmauve process. Projects that arc
recommended b% the state that cxpencncc unneccssan delays following approval due to lack of public
invol,cment mac be withdrawn from consideration by the state. For the alternative selected. please
pro-Ode a Scope of Work with a description of the anticipated project (i.e.. install two 6 x S' box culverts.
install 1.000 if of 26" pipe, etc.).
This is a AIEPA requirement Failure to adequarell• document the alternative selection process map
cause an application to be deemed ineligible.
Three alternatives have been identified and evaluated for preventing the Skagit River
floodwaters from entering the downtown Mount Vernon area. These altematives are:
1) No Action - Continue to place sandbags as necessary during flood-fighting efforts.
2) Construct a permanent flood wall.
3) Raise the existing dike.
Under the No Action alternative, the costs identified in the previous section for construction of a
sandbag wall and the associated damages and economic impacts are excessive in comparison
to other altematives. The risk of flooding associated with this alternative is also unacceptable,
given that the flood-fighting efforts have a difficult time keeping up with the floodwaters. The
Corps does not even recognize these flood-fighting efforts in its economic analysis. given that it
is unreliable. Comments received by the public indicate that other altematives besides
sandbagging are more desirable, given the risks and economic impact on downtown businesses.
The second altemative has been described in the previous sections of this application. For
reasons of cost, safety, least environmental impact, and public support, this is the recommended
altemative.
The third altemative is to raise the dike on Main Street. As can be seen from the attached
photos, this area has been extensively developed for many years, and raising the dike along the
street would eliminate the street access for the buildings in the area. The cost of raising the dike
would be more than constructing the flood wall described under the second altemative. The
public was opposed to this altemative, given the negative impacts on transporation and the
downtown businesses.
A public meeting was held on May 22, 1996, to discuss a means to keep floodwaters from
entering the City from the State Route 536 bridge down to the vicinity of the Moose Hall. Three
alternatives were considered. The first was to continue to flood fight using sandbags. The
second was to build a flood wall in such a way that additional height could be added during flood
events and the openings for businesses and access to the revetment parking structure could be
closed off during flood events. The third was raising the dike on Main Street. It was stated that
raising the dike on Main Street would eliminate pedestrian/vehicular access to abutting
businesses. The public was invited to state their opinions regarding the altematives. The
owners of several area businesses were present, and all indicated that they were in support of
the second alternative for the flood wall. A great deal of enthusiasm was expressed to pursue
this alternative.
WINTERSTORMS 1995
Hazard`litigation Grant Program Application 10
February 1996
SECTION S. SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVE (Continued)
B. Plcase provide documentation of anv communications your agency has had with other federal, state, local,
or tribal agencies regarding the alternatives planning or impacts of this altemadve. PIea_se pro%ide the
agency, contact person, phone number, and any other documentation.
Army Corps of Engineers:
Steve Foster (206) 764-3456
Forest Brooks (206) 764-3456
1978 Design Memorandum
1993 Draft Flood Damage Reduction Study
Skagit County Surface Water Manager:
Dave Brookings (360) 336-9400
City of Mount Vemon Engineering:
John Wiseman (360) 336-6204
WINTERSTOR1v1S 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 10
February 1996
SECTION 9. STATE AND FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY
The questions in this section relate to specific objectives that the state and federal government wish to accomplish
through the Hazard 1%bugation Grant Program. To determine whether or not your proposal meets the minimum
state and federal criteria, the state must have a clear and detailed written response to each of the items below.
The state will not be able to consider projects that do not meet the applicable criteria.
A. FEDERAL CRITERIA- FEDERAL GOALS AIND OBJECTIVES
Federal regulations governing the Hazard N itigation Grant Program (44 CFR Part 206 Subpart N
Section 206.434 Ltd 206.435) establish the minimum criteria that proposed projects must meet in order to
be eligible for grant funding.
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE RESPONSE
Answer the following questions FULLY on a separate sheet(s), if needed, to demonstrate that this project
meets minimum federal eligibility criteria:
1) Describe how the project will demonstrate significant beneficial impact(s) on the declared disaster area.
This project demonstrates at least three significant beneficial impacts to the declared disaster
area.
a. There is a significant beneficial impact in the form of a reduced risk by using a designed
facility rather than having to rely on extensive flood-fighting efforts to protect more than
S160,000,000 in assessed property values.
b. The project will more than pay for itself in saved flood-fighting costs, associated
damage, and reduced economic impacts during a flood.
C. The project will greatly reduce flood-fighting resources such as people and materials,
making them available to use in other areas as required.
2) Describe how the project will solve a problem independently, or is it a functional. beneficial part of an
overall solution. (If part of a larger project, there must be assurance that the overall project will be
completed.)
In 1995, the Dike District, City, and County placed more than over 100,000 sandbags in this
area. This project will replace the need for the majority of these bags. The wall will be placed in
an area where the need is the greatest for placing bags and the height of water on the bags is
also the highest. Any portion of the wall that can be built will minimize the need for flood-fighting
resources and lower the flood risk to a significant population of Skagit County.
3) Describe how the project will demonstrate a substantial reduction of the risk of damage, hardship, loss,
and suffering that would result from a future disaster.
As stated in the 1993 Corps Reconnaissance Report, flood fighting is not a reliable means of
flood protection. This section of dike requires the most extensive flood fighting efforts in the
County, and protects S160,621,325 of the County's S935,103,089 total assessed value. This
project will greatly reduce the risk to human health and safety, property damage, and loss that
could result from a future disaster.
WINTERSTOR.MS 1995 11
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.application
February 1996
SECTION 9. STATE AND FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY (Continued)
4) Describe hov.- the project will address a repetitive problem, or one that poses a significant risk if left
unresolved.
This project will address a repetitive problem in that sandbagging of the revetment has been
necessary approximately every 4 years. The predicted return interval for a flood elevation that
requires sandbagging is supposed to be the 10-year event. As discussed previously, the project
will also significantly reduce the risk from flooding due to the unreliability of flood fighting. As
can be seen from the attached photos, this risk is significant, given the valuable property it
protects.
5) Describe how the project will contribute to a long-term solution of the problem(not a short-term fix).
This project provides a long-term solution to a recurring problem in that construction of any
portion of the flood wall reduces the amount of flood fighting required and the associated risk.
The wall has at least a 50-year life and will provide protection for the 100-year flood event. This
is the solution presented in the Corps 1993 Reconnaissance Report and, as such, will
accommodate any final Army Corps project on the larger Skagit system if it does occur.
o) Describe how the project, upon completion, will have affordable operation and maintenance costs which
the applicant jurisdiction is committed to support.
This project will require very little maintenance. The maintenance will be thoroughly investigated
and minimized during the design stage. The flood wall will be constructed with durable
materials that can withstand more than the 50-year useful life. The wall will be designed such
that the cost of erecting the temporary portions of the flood wall will be insignificant compared to
the maintenance required for the current sandbagging. As such, this project can be supported
financially by the Dike District and the City.
7) Descri'be compliance with Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12898.
(see attached worksheets,pages 21 and 22)
We have complied with Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12898 through the public process.
There is no practicable alternative to locating this project outside of the floodplain. This will be
further reviewed and documented through the Shorelines Management Act process.
B. STATE CRTTERLA- STATE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The State of Washington has established the following damage reduction goals:
1) Save lives and reduce public exposure to risk
2) Reduce or prevent damage to public and private property
3) Reduce adverse en,,ironmental or natural resource impacts
4) Reduce the financial impact on public agencies and society.
WINTERSTORtiiS 1995
Hazed Mitigation Grant Program Application 12
February 1996
SECTION 9. STATE AND FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY (Continued)
B. STATE CRITERIA - STATE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (Continued)
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program supports these goals and will attempt to award funding to proposals that
meet those goals. Applicants must describe, IN NARR4TIVE FORIM. if and how the proposed project meets
all or any of the following specific policies (1 through 10) which meet the above goals. Applicants should also
describe whether the proposed project is part of a local, overall plan to reduce hazard vulnerability (11).
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE RESPONSE
DESCRIBE A.ND DEMONSTRATE HOW THE PROJECT WILL:
1) Protect lives and reduce public risk.
Building the flood wall protects lives and reduces public risk by the following:
a. Replaces most of the risky sandbagging effort with a more permanent solution, thus
reducing the risk to the sizable area that would be affected by a breach in this location.
b. Will greatly increase flood-fighting personnel and equipment to be used in other areas in
the County.
?) Reduce the level of hazard damage vulnerability in existing structures and developed property.
As stated in the Corps 1993 Reconnaissance Report, this area protects $160,621,325 in
assessed value. The major portion of this assessed value is due to existing structures and
developed property. Constructing a more permanent flood wall in lieu of placing sandbags will
reduce the hazard to these properties.
3) Avoid inappropriate future development in areas that are vulnerable to the hazard damage.
The jurisdictions provided protection by the Dike District have implemented floodplain
development ordinances consistent with the federal flood insurance program. The area afforded
protection has been historically a densely developed downtown commercial area and has been
designated as such in future GMA plans for Skagit County.
WINTERSTORMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 13
February 1996
SECTION 9. STATE AND FEDER-kL ELIGIBILITY (Continued)
4) Show development and implementation of comprehensive programs. standards, and regulations that
reduce future hazard damage.
As previously described, this project has been identified in the Army Corps studies of 1975 and
1993. Unfortunately, the Army Corps studies have not been implemented. While not specifically
mentioned, this project is in conformance with the design guidelines in the County's current flood
control policy. Both the Army Corps report and the County policy are being updated.
5) Provide a cooperative, inter junsdictionaUinter-agency, solution to the problem.
This project is the result of an interjurisdictional agreement between Dike District No. 3 and the
City of Mount Vemon. In addition to the problem of downtown Mount Vemon, there is an
ongoing effort to reach agreement on a process for determining a regional flood control plan for
the Skagit Valley. The Flood Wall Project is separate from that planning effort in that it targets a
specific immediate need for more reliable flood protection to downtown Mount Vernon, but the
project is also consistent with any regional planning effort in that previous studies have identified
the need for a flood wall in Mount Vernon.
6) Provide a long-term mitigation soluuon in locations that experience repetitive hazard damage.
In the last 20 years, the revetment has had to be sandbagged five times. In the larger events,
some sandbagging will still be required with the project in place, but it will not be as often or as
extensive. The nsk of having to withstand 4 feet of water against the sandbag line will be greatly
reduced by having to build only a few sections of sandbag wall approximately 1 foot high.
7) Reduce the number of vulnerable structures through acquisition or relocation. Describe your jurisdictions
plans for the acquired property (open space, etc.)
This project will reduce the risk of property damage by protecting property with the flood wall and
not relying heavily on sandbagging and volunteer labor. Because this project is designed to
protect the City's Central Business District, there will be no acquisition or relocation of
development in the area. The project will be constructed on existing right-of-way owned by the
City.
WINTERSTOP—MS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program,application 14
Fcbruary 1996
SECTION 9. STATE AND FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY (Continued)
Sl Address emerging hazard damage issues (such as the damage caused by stormwater runoff, trees in right-
of-ways, etc.).
The two jurisdictions afforded protection by the Dike District are currently addressing other
hazard damage issues such as water quality problems, localized flooding problems, and fish
habitat problems from stormwater runoff. These problems are being addressed by their
respective surface water management programs that cannot also fund river flooding problems
such as the one that will be solved by construction of the Flood Wall Project.
9) Restore or protect natural resource, recreational, open space, or other emironmental values.
Since the project is located in a densely developed business district, no real environmental
impact will result from the facility. If the river were to breach the emergency sandbag line or the
revetment during a flood fight event, the type and amount of damage mentioned in the Army
Corps report would occur. Environmental benefit from the project would be realized from greater
assurance that flooding developed areas, which causes water quality problems, will be avoided.
Also, nearly eliminating the use of sandbags will prevent much of the residual sand material from
being washed into surface waters.
10) Increase public awareness of hazards. preventive measures, and emergency responses to disaster.
Upon viewing the attached photos of flooding with the sandbag walls in place, we can conclude
that the public is very aware of the hazard, and the public has contributed to preventive
measures by helping to construct the sandbag walls. Rather than consume nearly all the
County's resources in an emergency to construct the sandbag wall, the public and emergency
response crews could focus on addressing other hazards and preventive measures if the flood
wall were in place.
11) How will this project impact on, or support, the state's goals as detailed in the Growth Management Act?
This project will favorably impact GMA and the state's goals by providing a more reliable means
of flood control to the major urban center in Skagit County. Providing this type of added security
to an existing urban center promotes the use of existing developed commercial areas, as well as
existing transportation and utility infrastructure. Without this added security, there will be added
pressure from the community to extend development to areas in the County outside designated
urban growth centers.
WINTERSTORNIS 1995 _
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 15
February 1996
SECTION 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Applicants are responsible for research and compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations,
codes, and standards and for securing the necessary permits and approvals. This area is of major concern to both
the state and federal governments and should be as complete, accurate, and concise as possible. Delays have been
experienced in obtaining final approval for grants due to lack of environmental data.
A CURRENT SEPA Checklist or Determination of Non-Significance for the grant project will be required if the
project is selected for FEMA funding recommendation. A short turnaround will be required at that point, so it
is to your advantage to begin the process now.
Projects funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program must comply with all appropriate
environmental regulations. This includes compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA
PL 91-190, as amended), Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), and Executive Order 11990
(Protection of Wetlands), and WAC 197-11 (SEPA).
A. SEPA COMPLLANCE (WAC 197-11)
1. Indicate if there will be a Determination of Non-Significance or Claim for Categorical
Exemption for this project.
DNS: Yes X No
CE: Yes No X
2. If you have a completed Environmental Checklist or Determinauon of Non-Simiiftcance, please
include it as part of your application.
The City is preparing a SEPA Environmental Checklist for the project.
3. If you claim a Categorical Exemption under SEPA regulations, please cite the sections of your
SEPA procedures, or the section of WAC under which you claim exemption.
Aimlicarit A2cncti's SEPA Procedures N/A
WAC
4. Please describe the categorical exemption in adequate detail for evaluation:
N/A
WINTERSTORNNiS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 16
February 1996
• SECTION 10. ENvTRONNIENTAL DATA (Continued)
B. HYDRAULIC CODE COMPLLAtiCE (RCW 75.20.100-1.10)
1. Is your proposed project located below the Ordinary FLah Water Line in the bed of any snit or
fresh water of the state?
YES *1O X
2. If your answer is '�=S. you are responsible for contacting the Department of Fisheries or the
Department of Wildlife in order to determine whether a Hydraulic Project Approval will be
required for your proposed work. Proof of application wall be required before grant funding can
be advanced.
NIA
C. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE (RCW 90.58)
1. Is your proposed project located within the boundaries of the Shoreline Mamgement Act
(Including but not limited to: 200 fee, of. anv marine shoreline or associated wetland; the banks
or associated wetlands of any su-rn with a flow of 20 cubic feet per second or greater; or the
shoreline or associated wetland of any lake 20 acres in size or larger in any of the 15 counties
west of the crest of the Cascade Mountain range)?
YES X NO
2_ If you answer'�E_S and your proposal is selected. you will need to apply for a Shoreline Permit
from the appropriate applicant unit of government and submit a copy of the permit_ or
exemption. prior to release of any funding.
The City is currently preparing a Shoreline Permit Application.
D. WETLA—NDS DISCLOSLRE (Governor's Esecutitie Order 90-04)
1. Is there a wetland, as defined by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the CIean dater
Act. on the site or within the immediate�acinin•?
YES NO X
2. If you answer YES to the above question. you will be required to comply with the Governor's
Executive Order 90-04. This may include the preparation and Department of Ecology's approval
of a WETLANDS COMPENSATORY MITIGATION' PLAN. If applicable. the plan must be
approved by the Department of Ecology before HNIGP funds are approved. Please indicate what
actions, if appropriate, you are taking in regards to wetlands.
wRv'TERSTOR.MS 1993 17
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
February 1996
SECTION 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Continued)
E. FLOODPLAIPI DISCLOSURE (RCW 86-16)
1. Is your proposed project located in a floodplain designated on a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Map?
YES X NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the following:
FEMA Flood Insurance Panel Number: 530158-0002-6 (City)
530151-0425-C (County)
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone Designation: AO(1) (City)
AO(2) (County)
AO(3) (County)
Is your jurisdiction a participant in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program?
YES X NO
F. PUGET SOUND BASIN DISCLOSURE (RCW 90.70)
1. Is your proposed project located in, or part of. a drainage basin that drains into Puget Sound
(identified in RCW 90.70.005 as all salt waters east of Port Angeles and south of the
international boundary line)?
YES X NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the basin and subbasin.
Skagit River
G. CRITICAL AREAS DISCLOSURE (RCW 36.70A)
1. Is your proposed project located in any of the "Critical Area" classifications identified in
Washington State's Growth Management Act? These areas include: Wetlands, Aquifer
Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas such as
landslide, erosion, alluvial fan, seismically active, or volcanic areas, and Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Areas.
YES X NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the critical area category(s).
Frequently flooded area.
WINTERSTORNIS 1995 18
Hazard Mitigation Chant Program Application
Fcbruary 1996
SECTION 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (Continued)
3. If your proposed project is located in a designated critical area. please explain if and hmx it «ill
contribute to further development in the area.
This project will provide protection to an area that historically has been the urban
center of Skagit County. This area will continue to serve as an urban center in
accordance with recent comprehensive planning performed to comply with the
GMA. As part of this designation though, the City is regulating any development
in accordance with their floodplain ordinance, which is in compliance with the
Federal Flood Insurance Program.
H. CODE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
1. Will your project meet all applicable codes and standards for the area in which it is located?
YES X NO
2. If you answer NO, please describe on a separate sheet the exemptions or variances that will be
required.
NIA
L REGIONAL OR BASINWIDE PLANNING
1. How has your jurisdiction coordinated the planning of this project with neighboring
jurisdictions?Please explain.
As discussed earlier, this project has been a part of the planning process done by the
Army Corps of Engineers, Skagit County, the cities within Skagit County, and the diking
districts for many years. This is further evidenced by the attached letters of support from
the County and the City.
2. Will this project affect upstream/dowAmstseam/neighboring jurisdictions? Please explain to what
level this has been done, or why not if nothing has been done.
This project will benefit downstream residents of the County and City by increasing the
level of protection during a flood event. It will also benefit every resident in Skagit
County by freeing up limited flood-fighting personnel and supplies so they can be used in
other locations as necessary.
SECTION 11. PROOF OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT INCORPORATION AND TAX-EXEMPT STATUS
If you are an eligible private nonprofit corporation with like-govetztment semces, please provide supporting
documentation.
N/A - Special District
WINTERSTORMS 1995 19
Hazard;Mitigation Grant Program Application
February 1996
SECTION 12. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN APPLICANT'S AGEN
For the State of Washington ~azard Mitigation Grant Program Acpiication
BE 17 RESOLVED Commis. Secretary Treasurer
THAT John J . DeVlieoer
(Name
- Printed) ,-ltlet
OR , Commissioner
his/her alternate: David J. Olson
(Title)
(Name - Printed)
o Dike District No. 3
is hereby authorized to execute Tor and on behalf or th .
a focal government entity, state agency, special purpose CISt-ict, or private nonproTit
organization estabiished under the laws of the State oT Washington, this application and
;0 file In the Military Department, Emergency Management Division for the purpose OT
obtaining certain federal and State ttnanciai assistance under A ection —.04 Ot Pg88 S"?8S
as amended by the Robert T. S-ca TOfd Disaster Relief and =m ..gency Act or
Dike District No. 3 hereby authorizes its agent to Provide to the
THAT the
State Emergency Management Division Ior all matters pertaining tO such State Olsaster
mitigation assistance the assurances and agreements reguired.
Passed and approved this = day oT
(Signature and T itie)
(Signature and Titiei
CERTIFICATION
I, David J . Olson duly appointed and Commissioner
(Name) iTitie) _: A r P n
0' Dike District No. 3 do hereby cer;-y „at the above ;s a t ue and
COr;OC: COPY 0 a resolution passed and approved by the Commissioners
'
of the Dike District No. 3 /
on the day of ,
�(SlQria�Urel
Commissioner
(Title)
WIN7cRS70RMS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
February 1996
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 & 11990 CHECKLIST
EO - 11988— FLOODPLALN NU AGEMENT & EO 11990—WETL42ND PROTECTION
STEP 1. Determine whether the proposed action is located in a wetland and/or the 100-year floodplain
(500-year floodplain for critical actions), or whether it has the potential to affect or be affected by a
floodplain or a wetland.
YES
STEP 2. Notify the public at the earliest possible time of the intent to cam out an action in a floodplain or
wetland, and involve the affected and interested public in the decision making process.
The public has.been notified since 1975 (if not before). The most recent public involvement
was 5/22/96.
STEP 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the proposed action in a floodplain or
wetland (including alternatives sites, actions and the no action option). If a practicable alternative
exists outside the floodplain or wetland,FEMA must locate the action at the alternative site.
This was done 5122/96. The no action is the only alternative site outside the floodplain, and
this is not practicable.
STEP 4. Identify the full range or potential direct or indirect impacts associated with the occupancy or
modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential direct and indirect support of floodplain
and wetland development that could result from the proposed action.
There will be no real negative impacts associated with occupancy or modification of the
floodplain, and there are no wetlands in the project area. This is because the area to be
protected has been for many years a densely developed downtown commercial area. There
will be positive impacts in the reduced likelihood of flood damage. The City and County's
floodplain development requirements will not be changed due to this project.
STEP 5. Minimize the potential adverse impacts and support to or within floodplains and wetland to be
identified under step 4, restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplain.
and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values served by wetlands.
No adverse impacts.
STEP 6. Reevaluate the proposed action to determine first, if it is still practicable in light of its exposure to
flood hazards, the extent to which it will aggayate the hazards to others, and its potential to disrupt
floodplain and wetland values. Second, if alternatives preliminarily rejected at step 3 are practicable
in light of the information gained in steps 4 and 5, FEMA shall not act in a floodplain or wetland
unless it is the only practicable location.
No change due to reevaluation.
STEP 7. Prepare and provide the public with a finding and public explanation of any final decision that the
floodplain or wetland is the only practicable alternative.
This will be done through shorelines.
STEP 8. Re-,iew the implementation and post-implementation phases of the proposed action to ensure that the
requirements of the order are fully implemented. Oversight responsibility shall be integrated into
existing processes.
wrn'TERSTORMs 1995
Hazard,lAitigation Grant Program Application 21
February 1996
EXECUTIVE ORDER 1289S
Environmental Justice In Minority Populations & Low Income Peoples
YES NO
1. Are there concentrations of minoriry or low-income populations in
or near the project area? X
?. Does the proposed project adversely impact the health or physical
emzronment of minority or low-income populations? X
Action. if impacted: a) Change Project
b) Mitigate Project
WINTERSTOR.MS 1995
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application 22
February 1996
KEY
CTTY BUII.DINGS
A- HALL.B- ENGINEERING
7GINEERING L--�
C- FIRE DEPARTMENT u
D- LIBRARY [n
E- MAINTENANCE SHOP G�
F- PARKS & RECREATION
G- PLANNING & BUILDING 0'
H- POLICE
I- POLICE
J- PROBATION/COON/C0N3[LTN. SERV.
K- PUBLIC DEFENDERS
L- SANITATION
N- A5ASTE RATER TREAi1t7 I FLOOD WALL PROJECT
GOPER*71fENT BUII.DINGS Ln
0- POST OFFICE
P- MV S'ENIOP. CEN=-
Q- SBAG. CO. PUBLIC WORKS _
P.- SSAG. CO. COURTHOUSE
S- JCVLNILB PROBATION I ( I h
T- DISTRICT COURT
U- NW AIR POLLUTION AUTH.
- SK. CO. SENIOR SERVICES
lf- SB.1GTT COUrrCII. OF G07TS.
N
,El
j Fin
=kcd
�1—
IV /hre
� CC
VICINITY AND
GO �lERNMENT BUILDING
` � �- LOCATOR MAP
oil
IFF
• , 4 ,
Fill
jb
t , s
Wt
40
ell
~' 1
.Y o
r x.
f.
. _ �I`�w�A[•���T���' � _�i�"'�.� r��1�t� tom~
- �. .ice--' ^L�.r•..�-�. _-�s�+.+ _�.-iT,,.e•;i-
. •�_.r.�. 'ir'rra a1+y��sY~�w '��"_:.T�sww�
�+�-s-mot:.!`r s:'!�� ' 'r�'e..` �1 �.�T�iC�•" .�. ��
CITY OF • VERNON
WASHINGTON
. • • 1990
DOWNTOWN FLOOD EVENT
r
I �
_w✓C.
6
Avgrat-
'Sc" fill
- 1 -
- i!• Y 7L •ter ri�-
{ '_
MOUNTCITY OF
•
WASHINGTON
NOVEMBER 1995
FLOOD EVENT
DOWNTOWN
.lT Lw•
'�`�"'777 eL^� _�����'!► `� —mow
Attachment
Documentation for Total Benefits of the Project
Tais ariachment provides Lhc documentation for the:otai benefits of the project as requested in Section 6.B.
The bcnents of the project fall under two categories. They are ])Loss or Busiuessilncome, and 2)Disaster
Damages. An explanation of the cost benefits of dhc project according to these categories is as follows:
Loss of Business/Income
Because of the labor involved,sandbag walls are often le^in pla=after the flood fighting effort until the
threat of any additional flooding has passed. This perod of time when the sandbags are in place can last
for several weeks and they block the area businesses causing a loss of business income. The City has-.Taken
a survey of all the affected businesses along the route where the sandba2oing effon uZkes place. This
survey eskad what effect the flood fi=Iicui�5 effort has had on their business ae:ivit'.es. The:results f on the
12 effected businesses is that they are impacted on the order of 5;9,000 per aacb event. or=averase of
S3,250 each. The:project would virtually eliminate his impact on the area business because sections of the
flood wall would either be permanent rLx=m that are not in the way, or Thc,/would be temporary wails
that arc erected as needed and would be dismantled as soon as the flood event was over- If tae totai impact
for loss of business income is S39,000 per occurrence, and there arc 12.5 occ,==czz over the useful life of
the project, then the total benefit of the project ruiated to Ioss of business income is S;87,500.
Disaster Damaces
Disaster damage costs arc divided into two care-cries. One is'or damages to proper^:tat isn't protect:d
in a flood fn;hting effort,but would be:protected br a flovdwail. Tne-other is for the cost of erecting-Ihe
te-nuorary sandbag walls.
The damage to proper. v in the 1995 flood was d"umcnted in darnazc survey rcpurts to be 563.000-
vineiv percent of that damage would be prevented b�-the iloodwall winch equais S56.700.
The cost for ere=zr2 the sar,dbaz wall is for the sandbags, leant 5:'7,700 a z to•dba and at u labor for ��ai
of S.50,00o.
Thererore the totaldsaster dania�,ca per occurrent--are Si06,700 per occu.,enee. If these are l'.5
oc:cur;eaces the useful life of the project. then the total benefit of the project related to this 1te L is
If we adopt the Corps of Engineers pulicv of aot considering flood ' ghrrie in their estimate for-food
damage, then the disaster dama�,c:mount would be much higher and on the order of S-'.5 28.000 annuat?y-.
(see Corps 1993 Reconnaissance Ramon).
S KAGIT COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS -DEPARTMENT
I I I I Cleveland Avenue. Mount Vernon. WA 98273-4215 (360) 336-9400 FAX (360) 336-9478
May 29. 1996
Mr. Martin Best
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Administration
State of Washington Military. Department
Emergency Management
P.O. Box 40955 v
Olympia. WA 98504-0955
Re: Flood Control assistance Account Program
Mount Vernon Flood Wall Project
Dear 'v r. Best:
I am writing to express my support for the proposed flood wall project with Dike District No.
for the downtown revetment area of Mount Vernon . As the Skagit County Surface Water
Management Division Manager. I am responsible for coordinating flood control and flood
fighting activities within Skagit Counrv.
Rural dikes in the tower Skagit River delta area have been constructed to provide protection
for the 25 year event. Urban dikes. except for those in the vicinity of downtown Mount
Vernon. have been constructed to provide 50 year protection. The dikes providing protection
for downtown Mount Vernon have only been constructed to provide 10 year protection. This
obviously creates an extreme flood hvhtinv situation.
It has been necessary during all flood events to construct a sandbag line along the east bank
of the Skagit River in the vicinity of downtown Mount Vernon. This was necessary in 1975.
1979. 1985. 1990. and 1995. In the recent 1995 event. the City calculates that berveen
100.000-120.000 bags were used in this effort. Because of the rapid response of the Skagit
River to hvdrolo`Tical events. a fain- limited amount of time is available to perform this feat.
Generally less than 24 hours of notice is available between the time the baunnnu starts and the
time the water is on the bag line. The County and Citv have had to rely on volunteer labor to
perform this activity. To date. we have been very lucky. However. it does not make sense to
continue to spend S50.000 per event in sandbag costs while bearing_ this risk.
The Corps of Engineers recently completed a reconnaissance study %vhich anal%zes Hood
damaL_e costs for the lower Ska_it River area. The Corps of Engineers estimated that the
l;omntitted to Community �ervicc in 1'r:insportatiun. Surface water \lan:iLlc file"t and Solid 11a-ste
Mr. Martin Best
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Administration
May 29, 1996
Page Two
east bank area suffered an annual average damage of $4,528,000 per year. While the project
proposal does not provide a flood wall for the entire area, it provides an increase in protection
in the area which is most difficult to flood fight. It will still be necessary to flood fight with
sandbags along several thousand feet of road on the top of the dike. However, the flood wall
will replace the sections requiring the most bags. I cannot think of a more worthwhile flood
control project in the City of Mount Vernon.
Very truly yours,
Dave Brookings
Surface Water Division ManaEer
DB/JCW/dw
City of ou nt Engineering Department
Post Office Box 809 ernon. Washington 98273 Telephone 336-6204
1024 Cleveland Avenue Fax: 360-336-6299
May 28, 1996
Mr. Martin Best
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Hazard itititigation Grant Program Administration
State of Washington Military Department
Emergency Management
P.O. Box 40955
Olympia, WA 98504-0955
Re: Flood Control Assistance Account Program
Mount Vernon Flood Wall Project
Dear Mr. Best:
I am writing to express the City's support for the proposed Mount Vernon flood wall project. This
project lies within the jurisdiction of the City of Mount Vernon. and the City will be an zqual partner
with Skagit County Dike District No. 3 in paving for the local share on this project. The area in
question is currently only protected against a 10 year flood event. Massive flood fighting activities
over a ve-v short period of time are necessary during events of greater magnitude.
In 1995. over 100.000 bads were used to flood fight in the downtown Mount Vernon area. While the
flood wall project will not replace all sandbagging and flood fighting efforts. it will gready diminish
the number of bans and manhours necessary to accomplish the task. It will not take very many years
For this project to pay for itself in saved flood fighting costs alone. The flood wall will protect the
portions of the riverbank where the head is highest on the sandbag line. There will be much less
chance of failure of the flood wall than in the hastily constructed sandbar wall.
In 1990. the river level rose to within 6 inches of the top of the emergency sandbag levee. %Vith over
6.000 linear feet of ba<__=s in this section. it would have been impossible to have controlled a breach if
the river had risen an additional 6 inches. The City of Mount Vernon is in total support of this flood
wall project and looks forward to participating with the Skagit County Dike District in its construction.
Very tr tv vours.
. t
John C. W ise.nan. P.E.
City En 7ineer
JC W D E.d%N,
• T'�
�.„ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF r-NGINCCR�
SEATTLE DISTRICT.
t'.Q ' P O Bax 37ZZ
5EATTL.E. WASH INGTON 981 Z4-ZZ55
A TTLNTVN•••
Planning Branch i�ay 3�, ty96
Mr. John Wiseman. P.E.
Mount Vernon City f ngincer
P O Box 809
1024 Cleveland Avenue
Mount Vernon, Washinr:tun 99273
Dear Mr. Wiseman:
This letter replies to your request of May 24, 1996, asking whether the Corps of
Engineers has a program under which a a scament of the crnergcncy flnodwall, which is
constructed out of sandbags during almost annual (food Fights, could he constructed in
anticipatiun of Cutur'e flooding at the downtown Mount Vernon parking revetment.
Based on our May 23, 1996, telephone: conversation. I understand that, almost
annually during the flee}d tights, a 4,(� fooc-lone emeracncy sandhae floodwall is
constructed un the parking rcvetment to protect downtown 'Mount Vernon from Skagit
floodwull segment you are considcring would nut
River floods. The 1.6(0 !'()()[-long
provide cornl?lete flond protection to Mount Vernon but WOUld only eliminate the need to
construe: almost unnutiliv the portion of the emervency sandbag floodwall requiring the
larzc�t expenditures of manpower and materials.
The proposed project is neither a responsibility of the Corps of Engineers nor is it
eligible for Federal funding through the Curbs of Engineers.
If you have any further questions on this reply, please c:untact, I',tr. forest Brooks.
at tclephunc (206) 764-3456.
Sincerely,
ven uStzr
Chicf, Planning Branch
City Of ou nt Engineering Department
Post Office76ox09 e rno n Washington 98273 - Telephone 336-6204
1024 Cleveland Avenue Fax: 360-336-6299
PUBLIC WORKS :AND INFR.aSTRUCTURE C0Mh1ITTEE .'IEETING
yIINIiTES
MAY 22, 1996
In Attendance: City Council members: Chairman Don Bonles. Pat Parker. Joe Best. John
Cheney, and Charles Cass. Also in attendance were Cit~r Engineer John Wiseman. Assistant
City Engineer Fred Buckenmever. and Project Engineer Dan Eisses.
Public Nfeetiny - Proposed Flood Wall Project
Assistant City Engineer, Fred Buckenmever, discussed the flood wall project which involves
constructing a permanent wall from the State Route 536 Bridge down to the vicinity of the
Moose Hall. The wall would be built in such a way that additional helght could be added
and the openings for businesses and access to the revetm err parking srrucrure closed off
during tood events. Mr. Buckenmeyer ex;�Iained that *three aiternatives were being
considered. The first was the project as described above. The second was raising the dike on
Main Street. The third was to continue to flood fght using sandbags. �,[r. Buckermeyer
stated that raising the dike on Main Street would eliminate pedestrianiyehacuiar access to
aburtinr businesses. He brought up the fac: that in the !art food event. over 100.000
sandbars were needed in order to flood frht. Continued use of sandbags creates e=emely
high average annual exrense. The public was invited to state their opinions regarding the
proposed foodw•all project. The owners of several area businesses were present, and ail
indicated that they were in support of the flood wail aitemative. A great deal of enthusiasm
was expressed for this project. -
Central Combined Sewer Oyertlow Regulator - Burlington Northern Prooern-
Acauisition
Project Engineer, Dan Eisses, discussed the fact that the City Engineering Department had
anticipated purchasing properly east of the Burlington Nor:hern Railroad tracks berwe--n Gates
and Broadway Streets. ALFCO (Alf Christianson Seed Company) had expressed a desire to
purchase the same pare--! of property. The Enginee-ini7 Department at that time discontinued
their efforts to purchase the proper- v.ith the condition Lhat ALFCO would grant an easement
to the City for construction or the sever overnow re-Juiator. inordinate amount of time
has elapsed and A_L.FCO has not purchased :he proper:`:•. Tine Engineering Department
re',Llested a concLmsus tmrn the coli'mine-- for the continue ineir efforts to
purchase the propem The comminee ircic•ated that the Department should proc--e:i .vith the
purchase.
DRAFT
� K .j:� GI T RIVER , ����I�. S �► 1G - �
J �
T
If I j
(d l :V/lllO1.11:.11 St 0I11.11 X)
�7 rn M� D n • 1 ! ► �< L Z (n
Crn ►��� In
Ir Hest Ral Jaata .aJ, `� O
� p X) Oto
LA O c
it
nr ........ .a.ra.a....)a tLaaaaaaaaa.aaaar
►w�� -Ti In / f ur TI -1
1 i ••.� (1 C) C) ,.........a Ji r — i z cn •.a►
"dealCn
►.
� �1.aa.r,�► �
1A 1..
u .tr m -1 0, In a w 1.1
••�
C• o to K x r, xo;u ?u i t a.;►�•• n .
W �t lj 1 ri O N I 1'- I— (L f1 1
1 n T u Ii I1 �' I� In J�,n ' n (, t
I- N I• rt .� 1 rt ty :T Io :T
►►,
rN 17 In I-i :T 0 It G rt ,�•:�• *? i4 'i C�
a :r In Ili K 11 r i. L •:�►�
I7 Y I- a o 'K o to toI� to!, I— rt 0 G •7 C. O � a d I'. a
in r, N < 7 h :7 c 7 7 a t tt7� 1 f In �, m
%F W N FL rt :1 0K }(' ^' rn U+ . t7
r o ao
N In 11 o ri r t't •• o �> ]1 o �► O
I L \ C C tJ O o c: 1 o CTl z �•. G�
In o 1� tti 1� to In-- In _ �i "• � :L f
"1 O x. fj :1 l :7 11 1-• j�. I1 1�� � .,•�-_)t l• .• . � z, r-
1..
O T tl( It It 11 (1.
O a N 1•
N 13 (L (L Y
`G In 0 UI t 1 J
1• :1 (1 N lu
system . if this failure occurred outside of Burlington or in the
Big Bend area or another more densely populated area it is very
reasonable that damages could have been three to four times as
large as they were during the 1990 flood events .
d. See-n:ence of Events . During Ncvem:--er 1990 , the Skagit basin
experienced two significant flood events , the first estimated at a
25 year event and the second estimated at a 35 year event. The F__
_-land levee failure occurred during the first flood event and
cr4cr to the flood crest and levee overtopping. Basin-wide, the
majcrlty of the damages cc:urred a= t.:5 t;^e . ? t the begl n_:�g of
t-e second flood, not long of er flood stage was reached, the
=e-porary levee re-a" (built on!,; to f'_ced stage) was breached and
T, 4 s :allure reduced pressure on
. __ Island was again inundate,- . _.
-e entire system, and =;cod stages during the second larger evert
were the same or lower that: du_ _nc the =first smaller event. ns
damages for the 35 year event er erienced November 2 -26 , 1990
are not ccmcarable tc erected annual damaces for this flood
�re�:ency .
�7ecd =ich`;-c. Flecd fighting also played a significant
e . -
sole in reducing damages during the November 1990 events ,
escecially in the city of Mount Vernon and West Mount Vernon, where
flood fight bergs and sandbags held back up to four feet of water.
_ .:as assu=ed that throughout the basin, flood fighting is not a
46
reliable means of flood protection. During the feasibility study
this may be a good candidate to perform a risk analysis on.
Historically flood fighting has been successful most of the time,
however, the potential loss of life when relying on sandbag berms
in these highly populated areas may outweigh the usefulness of a
risk and uncertainty analysis .
TABLE 5
DINING DISTRICT
1992 ASSESSED VALUE
Corresponding
Dike District'6 Economic Sub-Area7 Assessed Value
Dike District T1 (3 ) Right Bank D/S Rural $100 , 468 , 300
(4 ) West Mount Vernon
Dike District T3 (6) Main Mount Vernon $160 , 621, 325
(7) Left Bank D/S Rural
Dike District ict `12 ( _) picht Bank L:/S pi-liver
�
(2 ) Right Bank D/S Pulver
Dike District 417 (I) Nc=t',l Mount Vernon 5=21, 6.7 , 530
D_ke District =22 (a ) -= =slant $ 3_ , 649 , 700
Dike District =20 ( 10 ) Ncckaca.:,cs S 2 , 172 , 600
Total Assessed Value $935 , 103 , Oo"9
6 Diking District =9 assessed value unavailable.
' This is meant to be a general or rough comparison.
�o
'I A It 1.1. 6
SKACIT BA5111
L\1't.t. 11:1) DAIIACL'S 10It VARI I LUo1) 1,vLIII
l CI AIII) t:011111 't I MI
Lt:uUo1111. I:XI'I:C'I'I:II DAIIACI-:S ( III i ► 0001
IIII- ARk:A
25 YEAIt 50 YI:Alt 100 YEAII
► ItIi,ltf IIAIIK II/S PULVI:11 IIOAD Sll 515 , 7on iI1 , 00 ) 3 ► Oo loo
2 . It It;11T ItA11K 1)/S 11111.vFIt IIOAI) S2 , 1oo 514 , 11111 526 , 200 133 , goo
I . ItIt:ll'I ItA11K 1)/ S 11IIItA1. 31 oo 512 , 61)ll 521 (,00 329 , 1,00
t, ttt:sT HT. VERHOH St1 , t)Ito 511, , 6u0 S2t 200 318 , 5un
is It. ut.ltlt ( it . It'l vEFtit()it H/ {11 loo S21) , So0 iJ7 /,00 i1, 6 71)0
6 . HA III 11T. VEIIIIOII 545 , 4n0 i51, , toll 566 , 50o 370 , Bon
AD ] LEFT BAllk: D/S HT . VERNON 51 2 , 400 514 900 317 , 8(10 i21, lit)1)
8 . I' I It I SLAItl) 4)� S 14 , S00 i l 6 , Not) i I It Boo i 2 '1 200
1 , Inn
I�C C tI C
TABLE 7
EXISTING CONDITION
BY ECONOMIC SUB-APrA AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES
(OCTOBER 1993 PRICES AND CONDITIONS)
EXistina
Economic Sub-Area Average Annual Damages
1. Right Bank U/S Pulver Road $1, 066 , 000
(including Burlington)
2 . Right Bank D/S Pulver Road $ 636 , 000
3 . Right Bank D/S Rural $ 539 , 000
4 . West Mount Vernon $ 707 , 000
5 . Bic Bend (Ncrtt Mount Vernon) $7-, 050 , 000
6 . Main Mount Vernon $3 , 525 , 000
7 . Left Bank D/S Mount Vernon $1, 003 , 000
Island $ 012 , 000
9 . Samish Overflew $ 197 , 000
10 . Ot ier Areas S 342 , 000
Nockactamcs , C-ear _,.ake, Sedro `"fccll eV
Total
J r
the twenty year discharge are estimated to be $1, 070 , 000 . Expected
annual damages assuming the levee does not fail until a twenty-five
year event are $1, 027 , 000 . :0r simplicity, during the
reconnaissance study phase, a simple average of the damages under
each failure assumption was taken to establish existing condition
average annual damages . This appears to be a reasonable approach
considering the difference between the two damage figures is only
$43 , 000 . The average annual damages for the sub-area which will
be used in the benefit evaluation are as follows .
Residential Structures $127 , 000
Residential Contents 56 , 000
Commercial/_ndustrial 3003 , 000
Public 111, 000
Emergency Aid 321, 000
Agriculture 41, 000
Other ' i , 000
Total $1, 050 , 000
( 6) Main Mount Vernon. A portion of the city of Mount
Vernon ( 1992 population. cf 19 , 550) including the downtown area is
located in this sub-area . The sub-area continues south along the
-5 corridor or, the left bank cf t:,e Skagit until the split between.
the North and Scuth Fork. This is the most highly developed area
within the study area . The area is a part of Diking District T3 .
Flooding begins south of the West Mount Vernon bridge, when a
�6
parking revetment is overtopped. This occurs at approximately a
ten year event, or a discharge of 117 , 000 cfs . The PNP and PFP
occur at the same elevation because the city will flood when water
comes over the existing revetment. Average annual damages under
existing conditions are over $3 . 5 million, and are broken dcwr.s as
follows .
Residential Structures 238 , 000
Residential Contents 582 , 000
Commercial/Industrial 998 , 000
Public 99 , 000
Emergency Aid 550 , 000
Agriculture 6 , 000
Other 52 • 000
Total $3 , 525 , 000
(7) L-eft Bank Downstream Mount Vernon . This sub-area ,
a sc a part Cf D_k ng District j3 , beq.ins scl:tt? of Mount Vernon and
continues along the ;-5 corridor through Conwav and on to Skagit
eay . The reach is bordered on the west by the South Fork of the
Skac '_t and or, the east by high ground. Flooding in this area
begins when the revetment in Mcunt Vernon is overtopped, which
occurs at 117 , 000 cfs or just ever a ten year event. Because of
this , the FNP and PFP are identical . Land use in this area is a
c_:ct..re of agricultural and .:ra'_/suburbdn develeoment . The srall
57
town of Conway is also located in this subarea . Expected annual
damages are broken down by ca`.egcry below.
Residential Structures $212 , 000
Residential Contents 144 , 000
Commercial/Industrial 141, 000
Public 198 , 000
Emergency Aid 46 , 000
Agricultural 238 , 000
Other 24 , 000
Tc-a 1 $1, 003 , 000
^i r 7cl and rn,-_c 5 -area cc-responds to Dik;r.0
Str=Ct =22 . The area -s bOr_er=C n _ae east "`: the Sohn Fork,
c^ the north by the Ncrt:. :or°t of t_`_e S.<ac t Fiver, and on the
_ ^west oy Skagit Eay. Dur_nc the ' cve—r-er :5c0 flood events a
u
levee break alcnc the Ncrt fork _nurdac.ed the entire area «_
dect s up to eicht fee_ and caused cve_ --S million =..
.:at _e- -
`maces . The :ro'cahle ncn-fail-_e was determined to be a
_5 . 7 vear event at a dischar=e c- cfs . The probable
'a;lure Dclnt was deter.:i—ed t: �.e a 4us-z. cver a twent'v-five vear
eveno at a disc::arce c= 140 , 000 cfs . Assum-nc the levee failure
a-- a 1-5 . 7 vear even-- averace annual damages are estimated
c_ to $37- 000 . If the levee fa_'_ unt,l over a twenty-
, , , Ices
yea event annual damages are estimated tc be $749 , 000 . For
_ 1 -
an arithmetic averace cz : : t;
e' c values was used to
?rocram (NFIP) and as such is sub-ject to NFI? requirements for new
development in the flood plain • These requirements include
elevating new houses and flocdprcefing cr elevating ether new
buildings to, or above, the 100-year flood level .
The Skagit Valley diking districts and Skagit County have a
coal of improving their levees to a unifo= 5z0-year fIcod frequency
level of protection. However, 'funding difficulties have thwarted
this coal . The districts will ccntinue to maintain and repair
exis zinc levees .
Skagit Ccu'nty has aske= t e Ccr=s to deve'_cc and �==cve their
:iccd warning syst 'em cr the ' -=a _.^. under Sect_cn _OS c= the 1940
lccd Control Act. Hi-her Cc-s aut hcr_-v ap_ -oval fc_ ccnductinc
an initial apera-sal c- this pr pcsal and asscciated funding is
=ending.
Mount Vernon will continue to search for funding sources to
i ;prove levees alcng the downtown revetment area . This area
currently cvertops above a 10-year frequency flood event and
requires extensive sandbaccinc -cr larger events .
b . iimcac-s c' t~Z
( ) sh F-I cods car--v eXte.^.s_ve bed _cads which
can ccver cr dest_cv s^'awninc teds . S__t _cads can s'cz. e= . :e
6-
STATg
0
O� y
a �
d — $
O
��y'C 1889�Y02
STATE OF WASHINGTON
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
PO Box 40955
Olympia, WA 98504-0955
Phone: (360) 459-9191 • FAX: (360) 923-4591
May 6, 1997
10
AA o�
Mr. Ronald J. Straka `� O� R�NpeP�`
City of Renton �A� e,1.
200 Mill Avenue South 1\ .0e
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Mr. Straka
Thank you for the recent Letter of Intent to participate in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) for the Holiday storms of Dec. `96/Jan. `97 (FEMA-1159-DR-WA). Enclosed are the
HMGP application and "Applicant Handbook and Guidelines" which should answer most of your
questions. Please review the materials carefully, and I strongly urge you to begin development of
your grant application(s) as soon as possible as the application has been greatly revised since last
year. During past application cycles, various applicants, for one reason or another, have been
unsuccessful because they waited to develop the application until shortly before the deadline. We
will soon be scheduling applicant workshops throughout the state to further assist in the
development of your application. It would be beneficial both to your jurisdiction and to our program
if those completing the application would plan to attend the workshop.
We received 201 Letters of Intent for FEMA-1159 which identify a total of over $91 million in
project needs within thirty counties. We do not yet know how much in Federal, State and local
funds will be available. A very rough estimate may be about $15 million available for the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program. With the many Letters of Intent submitted, and the limited funds
available, we have limited the allowable number of applications to three per jurisdiction, with a
combined total of not more than $1,500,000 ($1,125,000 Federal; $187,500 State; $187,500 local).
The local share may be higher to cover additional project costs. Projects submitted should
represent your highest priorities regardless of department.
It is to your benefit to begin some of the programmatic processes immediately, such as public
meetings. Please plan at least one, preferably two, public meetings to allow public input of your
proposed action alternative. These, of course, can be in concert with government administrative
meetings such as your weekly Commissioners meetings or town council meetings. The HMGP
application is due by FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1997. Applications postmarked after this date will
not be considered.
To assist you in the prioritization of your projects, the following information should be reviewed
carefully. These represent the areas of eligibility criteria that we have experienced problems with
during the last few application cycles.
May 6, 1997
Page 2
• Projects that are the responsibility of, and eligible for funding from, other federal agencies
(Federal Highways, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Public Assistance under Sec. 406 of the
Disaster Relief Act, etc.) are INELIGIBLE for HMGP funds. HMGP funds cannot be used as
a substitute or replacement to fund projects or programs that are available under other
federal authorities. (This would include new levees, on-system roads, etc.)
• Repair and restoration projects are INELIGIBLE for HMGP funds. These projects should be
covered under other federal authorities and disaster assistance funding.
• Projects that merely identify or analyze hazards or problems (such as studies, plans, and
mapping) are INELIGIBLE.
• Projects submitted from jurisdictions that ARE NOT participating and in good standing with
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are INELIGIBLE for HMGP funds.
• Projects that are part of a larger project could be INELIGIBLE. There must be an assurance
from the community that the whole project will be completed as documented by sufficient
funding and the HMGP portion of the overall must be clearly defined.
• Projects that do not have documented public involvement in the development and selection
of the proposed action alternative will be INELIGIBLE.
• Projects that have resulted because of deferred maintenance to the project site/structure
may be INELIGIBLE.
• HMGP funds cannot be used to purchase software systems, or hardware or equipment that
does not provide a direct benefit, or provides only a temporary solution to a long-term
problem, and/or is not environmentally sound.
Additionally, Emergency Management Division will be reviewing applications to ensure that no
more than four projects are open at any one time for each jurisdiction. While this should not
limit your intent to apply for DR-1159, you should keep this in mind and take action to close any
older projects that could preclude your jurisdiction from receiving new grant funding.
Please call me at 360/923-4585 if you have any questions. Either Jonathan Perry or Lois
Lopez, my program assistants, will be contacting you in the next month to coordinate a
workshop.
Sincerely,
2ain . Best
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Enclosures
WASHINGTON STATE
� TA7E.
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
x EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Post Office Box 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504-0955
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FEMA-1159-DR-WA (WINTER STORMS 1996)
The following checklist is designed to help the applicant ensure ALL portions of the application are
completed. Applicants must complete each section listed below to be considered for Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP) funding. HMGP will not evaluate incomplete applications. If narrative
questions are answered on separate sheets, the applicant must label these with the appropriate
section and question number. Any questions may be directed to the State Hazard Mitigation
Officer at(360) 923-4585.
1. Applicant Data.............................................................................................
2. Applicant's Agent Information......................................................................
3. Project Description/Site Location Maps.......................................................
(include sections of local plans as needed)
4. Damage Survey Report (DSR)....................................................................
5. Selection of Best Alternative.......................................................................
6. State and Federal Eligibility.........................................................................
7. Project Budget and Funding Sources .........................................................
8. Project Cost-Effectiveness..........................................................................
9. Estimated Schedule for Project Completion................................................
10. Environmental Data.....................................................................................
11. Certifications and Assurances.....................................................................
12. Resolution Designating the Applicant's Agent................................................
DATED MATERIALM
This application MUST be postmarked by September 12, 1997 to be
considered eligible for possible funding.
1159 DR-WA Winter Storms 1996
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
May 1997
WASHINGTON STATE
MILITARY DEPARTMENT
ws �2 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
POST OFFICE BOX 40955
Olympia, Washington 98504-0955
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
GRANT APPLICATION
FEMA-1159-DR-WA (WINTER STORMS 1996)
SECTION 1. APPLICANT DATA.
Applicant Name:
Project Title:
Federal Tax ID #:
Basis of Applicant Eligibility:
State Government Local Government Special Purpose District Indian Tribe
Registered Private Nonprofit With Like Government Services
* If the applicant is an eligible private nonprofit corporation with like-government services, please attach PROOF
OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT INCORPORATION AND TAX-EXEMPT STATUS
SECTION 2. APPLICANT'S AGENT INFORMATION.
The Applicant's Agent is the designated contact whom the applicant has authorized to apply for and
receive grant funding. For clear and direct communication, agencies may want to make this the
same person who will have project management responsibility if grant funding is awarded. To
provide continuity and ease of grant administration, the Washington State Military Department,
Emergency Management Division would like to work with a single point of contact throughout the
application, award, and reimbursement processes. A formal designation of an Applicant's Agent may
be made using the enclosed form, or by any method normally used by your jurisdiction.
Please Type Applicant Agent's
Name:
Title:
Telephone:
Address:
County:
11 59-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 j
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
SECTION 3 PROJECT (PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE) DESCRIPTION / SITE LOCATION
MAPS.
A. Project Title:
B. Project Location: (Legal description [Section/Township/Range] -please attach a site map)
C. Please provide the Federal Congressional District and the State Legislative District in which the
project is physically located:
Federal State
D. Project Goal and Description:
SECTION 4. Damage Survey Reports.
Is this site covered under, or connected to, a Damage Survey Report (DSR) under the Repair and
Restoration Program of PL 93-288, as amended?
No Yes DSR number
If Yes, describe why this mitigation measure was not included as part of the DSR.
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 2
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
NOTE: The following narrative sections are the scored portions of the application Please make
your NARRATIVE answers as concise, but as complete as possible Yes/No answers will be
• considered as "Unanswered" questions While not every question will apply to each
application applications that fail to answer most questions may not receive a score high
enough to receive funding.
Program Clarification
► The Federal Emergency Management Agency will no longer fund projects that are the primary
responsibility of other Federal Agencies such as the U. S. Army Corps of Engineer (USAGE),
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or the Federal Highway Administration
(FHwA), etc.. This includes levees and dikes.
► Projects that have been implemented or completed prior to funding approval by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency will be ineligible.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE SCORED!
SECTION 5. SELECTION OF THE BEST PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
A. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) requires a narrative discussion, of at least
THREE (3) alternatives (from no action to the most elaborate practical solution) and their
impacts (beneficial and detrimental). SEE Alternative Review Forms on pages 5, 7 & 9. In the
space below, describe how this project was selected over the other possible alternatives and
why it represents the best solution to the problem. Use additional sheets if necessary.
1 159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 3
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
STATE a� HAZARD ZA RD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE REVIEW FORM
N � 2
Part A
1889
PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1. Description of Alternative:
(Please include any appropriate diagrams,sketch maps,discussion on all components and actions,amount of materials
and equipment,dimensions of project,and amount of time required to complete):
2. Total Costs of this Alternative: $
3. Total Benefits of this Alternative: $
4. Description of affected environment:
1 159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 4
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 5: Alternative A . . . continued
5. Briefly describe any positive environmental impacts of the project. (Use a separate sheet if
needed)
6. Check any potential adverse impacts that apply.
Wetlands _ Water Quality _ Toxic or Hazardous Substances
Floodplain s Health & Safety _ Potential for Cumulative Impacts
Rare & Endangered _ Fisheries — Critical Areas (coastal zones, wildlife
Species refuge, wilderness, wild & scenic rivers,
Public Controversy drinking water aquifers.)
_ Historic Resources
Is this project using unproven technology?
7. Is there potential for degradation of already Yes No
- poor environmental conditions?
8. Is there potential to violate any Federal, State, local, or tribal Yes No
law or code to protect the environment?
9. Briefly describe any of the areas noted in questions 6, 7, or 8. (Please provide any
documentation.)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 5
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVE REVIEW FORM
°2 Part B
�y'�IBB9 a�Y
SECOND ALTERNATIVE
1. Description of Alternative:
(Please include any appropriate diagrams,sketch maps,discussion on all components and actions,amount of materials
and equipment,dimensions of project,and amount of time required to complete):
2. Total Costs of this Alternative: $
3. Total Benefits of this Alternative: $
4. Description of affected environment: (if different from the proposed alternative.)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 5. Alternative B. . . continued
5. Briefly describe any positive environmental impacts of the project. (Use a separate sheet if
needed)
6. Check any potential adverse impacts that apply.
Wetlands _ Water Quality _ Toxic or Hazardous Substances
Floodplain _ Health & Safety _ Potential for Cumulative Impacts
Rare & Endangered — Fisheries _ Critical Areas (coastal zones, wildlife
Species refuge, wilderness, wild & scenic rivers,
Public Controversy drinking water aquifers.)
_ Historic Resources
Is this project using unproven technology?
7. Is there potential for degradation of already Yes No
poor environmental conditions?
8. Is there potential to violate any Federal, State, local, or tribal Yes No
law or code to protect the environment?
9. Briefly describe any of the areas noted in questions 6, 7, or 8. (Please provide any
documentation.)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
STATE.O�
ALTERNATIVE REVIEW FORM
Part C
�y'�1889�pY
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1. Description of Alternative:
(Please include any appropriate diagrams,sketch maps,discussion on all components and actions,amount of materials
and equipment,dimensions of project,and amount of time required to complete):
2. Total Costs of this Alternative: $
3. Total Benefits of this Alternative: $
4. Description of affected environment:(if different from the proposed alternative.)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 $
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 5: Alternative C. . . continued
5. Briefly describe any positive environmental impacts of the project. (Use a separate sheet if
needed)
6. Check any potential adverse impacts that apply.
Wetlands _ Water Quality _ Toxic or Hazardous Substances
Floodplain _ Health & Safety _ Potential for Cumulative Impacts
Rare & Endangered _ Fisheries _ Critical Areas (coastal zones, wildlife
Species refuge, wilderness, wild & scenic rivers,
Public Controversy drinking water aquifers.)
_ Historic Resources
Is this project using unproven technology?
7. Is there potential for degradation of already Yes No
poor environmental conditions?
8. Is there potential to violate any Federal, State, local, or tribal Yes No
law or code to protect the environment?
9. Briefly describe any of the areas noted in questions 6, 7, or 8. (Please provide any
documentation.)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 9
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 5.....continued
D. ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE:
1. Acquisition and Relocation Projects only:
For Projects that involve the acquisition and/or relocation of homes and structures from the floodplain,
the following information is required as part of the environmental analysis and project eligibility review.
Additionally, all homes and structures must be removed/relocated within 90 days of closing by the
applicant if the grant is approved.
If a home(s) is located outside the identified 100 year flood plain, then provide documentation of
repetitive damages to the structure, or show the migration of the river, for FEMA to determine the
vulnerability of the structure.
a. Number of homes to be acquired/demolished
Please include a photo of each home being considered for acquisition.
b. Number of homes to be relocated
(Homes must be relocated outside the 100 year floodplain)
C. Number of homes that have renters
d. Amount of Relocation Assistance Required $
(see relocation assistance worksheet in Applicant
Handbook:Appendix 9)
e. Determination of Duplication of Benefits (DOB). Have any of Yes No
the property owners/renters received disaster benefits from the
National Flood Insurance Program or other FEMA disaster programs?
Note: Federal funds cannot be used as a match for this program. If individuals have
received any other benefits, the amount received will be deducted from the final
appraised value of the home if no repairs have been made. If repairs have been
made, home owner must provide copies of receipts.
f. Determining Fair Market Values of Property
(1) Please provide a list of the names and addresses of potential buyout/relocation participants.
Addresses should reflect the property to be acquired not mailing addresses.
(2) Include a property specific list of preliminary Fair Market Values (FMV) and/or Relocation
costs.
(3) Describe how initial property values were determined.
g. Please include a platt map indicating locations of homes to be acquired/relocated.
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 10
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 5 . . . continued
2. Review for All Types of Projects
a. HISTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Public Law 96-515, Sect 106)
(1) Are there any archaeologically significant resources
on the site? Yes No
(2) Are there any known or potential historic (over 50 years old)
structures in the project area which would be impacted by
the project? Yes No
*(Please include pictures of any structure over 50 years old.)
(3) For any archaeologically or historically significant structure, provide the date/age of the
building and whether it has been remodeled or added onto. Also provide any other historical
knowledge of the site.
b. Are there concentrations of minority or low income populations
in or near the project area? (Executive Order 12898) Yes No
(1) Would they be adversely impacted by this project? Yes No
c. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT & WETLAND PROTECTION
(1) Is the project located in or does it impact a flood plain? Yes No
(2) Is the project located in or does it impact a wetland? Yes No
(3) Using the 8 step Process found at the end of the Yes No
application (page 27), please indicate compliance with
Executive Orders 11988 (Flood Plain Management) and
11990 (Wetland Protection)
(4) Describe any outstanding issues, of compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990.
d. Are there any toxic or hazardous substances in the project area? Yes No
(Including underground storage tanks, above ground storage tanks,
septic systems or other potential contaminants).
A waiver of liability form will be required for contamination from such tanks prior to closing.
e. Please include a platt map indicating location(s) of project area.
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 11
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
E. NOTIFICATION and PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires public notification and involvement in the
development of alternatives and selection of the proposed action alternative. Describe and provide
documentation (notices, meeting minutes, etc.) of the recent public involvement(within the past
12 months) in the alternative development and selection process, especially those individuals that
this project may impact. Projects that do not have this documentation before submittal of the
application will be INELIGIBLE.
2. Please provide documentation of any communications your agency has had with other federal,
state, local, or tribal agencies regarding the alternatives planning or impacts of this alternative.
Please provide the agency, contact person, phone number, and any other documentation. (Attach a
separate sheet if needed). Jurisdictions that fail to communicate with other potentially impacted
jurisdictions (i.e. tribes, counties or cities) will be INELIGIBLE.
F. AFFECT OF NON-SELECTION
If a Hazard Mitigation grant is not provided, or delayed, what impact will this have on the timing of
your project? What is the affect on your ability to use alternate funds committed to this project?
1 159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 12
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
SECTION 6 STATE AND FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY.
■ FEDERAL CRITERIA - FEDERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
• Federal regulations governing the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (44 CFR Part 206
Subpart N Section 206.434 and 206.435) establish the minimum criteria that proposed
projects must meet to be eligible for grant funding.
■ STATE CRITERIA - STATE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The State of Washington has established the following damage reduction goals:
• Save lives and reduce public exposure to risk
• Reduce or prevent damage to public and private property
• Reduce adverse environmental or natural resource impacts
• Reduce the financial impact on public agencies and society
The questions in this section relate to specific objectives that the state and federal government wish to
accomplish through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. To determine whether your proposal meets
the minimum state and federal criteria, the state must have a clear and detailed written response to
each item below. Answer the following questions FULLY (on separate sheets if needed) to show that
this project meets minimum federal (f) and state (s) eligibility criteria. The state cannot consider projects
that do not meet the applicable criteria.
A. APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE RESPONSE
1. Describe how this project will protect lives and reduce public risk. (s)(f)
2. Describe how this project will reduce the level of hazard damage vulnerability in existing
structures and developed property. (s)(f)
3. Describe how this project will reduce the number of vulnerable structures through acquisition or
relocation. Describe your jurisdiction's plans for the acquired property (open space, etc.) (s)
4. Describe how this project will avoid inappropriate future development in areas that are vulnerable
to the hazard damage. (s)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 13
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 6. . . continued
5. Describe how the project will solve a problem independently, or functions as a beneficial part of
an overall solution. (f) (If part of a larger project. Assurance must be provided with the
application that the overall project will be completed.)
6. Describe how this project will provide a cooperative, inter-jurisdictional/inter-agency solution to
the problem. (s)
7. Demonstrate that this project will provide a long-term mitigation solution (not a short-term fix) in
locations that experience repetitive hazard damage. (s)(f)
8. Show how this project will address emerging hazard damage issues (such as the damage
caused by storm water runoff at build-out densities, trees in right-of-ways, etc.). (s)(f)
9. Describe how this project will restore or protect natural resource, recreational, open space, or
other environmental values. (s)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 14
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 6 . . . continued
10. Show your jurisdiction's development and carrying out of comprehensive programs, standards,
and regulations that reduce future hazard damage. (s)
11. Describe how your jurisdiction is increasing public awareness of hazards, preventive measures,
and emergency responses to DISASTERS. (s)
12. Describe how the project, upon completion, will have affordable operation and maintenance costs
that the applicant jurisdiction is committed to support. (f)
13. Does your jurisdiction have a local hazard reduction plan? If you have a plan, is this project
identified in it?
14. Describe how the proposed project improves your jurisdiction's ability to protect its critical areas
according to the Growth Management Act? (s)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 15
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
The following information applies to the proposed action alternative only.
SECTION 7. PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING SOURCES.
A. Estimated Total Project Costs:
Preliminary Engineering Report $
Design Engineering (P.S.E) $
Land / R-O-W Acquisition (Itemize each home
involved in acquisition, relocation or elevations) $
appraisal costs $
demolition costs $
closing costs $
relocation assistance $
legal costs $
Relocation Costs $
Sales or Use Tax $
Inspection/Construction $
Construction $
Other: (specify) $
-----------------
-----------------
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: $
NOTE: Costs associated with administering this grant will be funded separately from project costs and will
be reimbursed as a percentage of the eligible costs as established in PL 93-288 as amended by PL 100-
707, and according to Section 206.439.44 CFR. Reimbursements for direct costs are as follows:
• For the first$100,000 of net eligible costs, 3 percent of approved costs.
• For the next$900,000 of net eligible costs, 2 percent of approved costs.
• For the next$4,000,000 of net eligible costs, 1 percent of approved costs.
• For an applicant whose net eligible costs equal$5,000,000 or more, 'h percent of approved costs.
B. Non-Applicant (Outside Sources) Project Funds
1. Identify other funding you have applied for and the status of that application or award (verified in
writing whenever possible). If you have not applied for other funding sources, please explain
why.
11 59-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 16
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 7. . . continued
2. Please identify any funds, other than Hazard Mitigation Grant funds, committed to the project.
We realize that applicants often fund projects in phases and that a Hazard Mitigation Grant may
fund just one phase or aspect of the project. Also, applicants often package funds from other
grant or loan programs to provide complete funding of the entire project.
Sources of Funds Amount Local Match
Federal
from:
State
from:
Other
from:
TOTAL Non-Applicant Funds
If applicable, describe any constraints on the sources listed above.
C. Applicant Funding Source(s)
Please identify the source(s) of your share" for the HMGP amount of the project:
General Funds $
Capital Reserves $
Federal, State, or Private Loans $
Rates $
Assessments (ULIDs, LIDS, RIDS) $
Special Levies $
Other (Specify) $
Total Applicant Funds $
Applicant Participation Funding Percentage
(Divide the total applicant funds above by the total HMGP portion of the project)
111111111► Required Local Share is a minimum of 12.5%
r► The local Share must come from a non-federal Source (with the exception of Community
Development Block Grant funds).
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 17
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
SECTION 8. PROJECT COST-EFFECTIVENESS.
To fund Hazard Mitigation Grant projects, the federal government requires that the project's benefits,
over the life of the project, exceed the project's costs. Life of the project, or life-cycle, costs include
the construction, operation, and maintenance costs that will occur over the life of the project. Examples
of benefits that will occur over the life of the project include the cumulative costs of the damage to
protected property; future damages in area that the proposed action will mitigate over the life of the
project; past actual damages; value of private and public property and resources protected; reduced
maintenance costs; loss of revenue; estimates of income lost through road closures; etc. Failure to
produce any numbered amounts will result in automatic disqualification. Please explain on a
separate page if needed how you arrived at the benefits.
A. Cost-to-Benefit Narrative
Please discuss each of the following issues:
1. What is the project life in years?
2. Describe the life-cycle cost of the proposed project. [COSTS]
3. What is the value of the property that the proposed project will protect?
4. What are the specific documented damage amounts during the recent event that you can
attribute to the lack of this project?
5. What are the specific documented damage amounts during past events that you can attribute to
the lack of this project? (How often do they occur?)
6. What is the dollar amount (estimated) of damage and associated costs that you would prevent
as a direct result of the proposed project over its useful life? [BENEFITS]
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 18
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
Section 8. . . continued
B. Cost-To-Benefit Data: BENEFIT/COST INPUT WORKSHEET
The following basic information is needed to run a Benefit/Cost Analysis for HMGP (404) riparian and
coastal flood projects. Fill the applicable items as not all items will apply to each project.
(For those calculating their own Benefit/Cost, FEMA generally uses a 7% discount rate)
Total Project Cost Annual Maintenance Costs:
Project Life in Years: Past Disaster Costs:
Effectiveness of Project Total Displacement Costs
(i.e. 100% in a 100 year flood): ( e.g., rent, etc.):
Repair Costs to Pre-disaster Condition Event Frequency:
C. Frequency of damaging floods in the area protected by the project:
Flood Frequency(years) Estimated Damages expected in this time period before Mitigation
(change years to fit your situation) (per event)
10
50
100
500
SECTION 9. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT COMPLETION.
It is our desire for projects to move quickly in all phases of the grant process. Those projects that
cannot begin shortly after funding approval by FEMA may not be eligible. Estimate the month and
year when the activities listed were, or will be, completed. (This is only an estimate. HMGP
cannot predict the time table for FEMA to approve funding of projects.)
Estimated Completion Date
Grant Contract Signed July 15, 1998
Preliminary Engineering Report
Required Permits Obtained
Design Engineering
Land R/W Acquisition
Prepare Bid Documents
Award Construction Contract
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
Project in Use
Total time from grant agreement signing until project completion
1 159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 19
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
SECTION 10 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST.
Applicants are responsible for research and compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations, codes, and standards and for securing the necessary permits and approvals.
The State of Washington will require a CURRENT SEPA Checklist or Determination of Non-Significance
for the grant project if the project is selected for FEMA funding recommendation. We will require a short
turn around at that point, so it is to your advantage to begin the process now.
Projects funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program must comply with all appropriate
environmental regulations. This includes compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA
PL 91-190, as amended), Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), and Executive Order 11990
(Protection of Wetlands), E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice and WAC 197-11 (SEPA).
A. SEPA COMPLIANCE (WAC 197-11)
1. Will there be a Determination of Non-Significance or Claim for Categorical
Exemption for this project?
DNS: YES NO
CE: YES NO
2. If you have a completed Environmental Checklist or Determination of Non-
Significance, please include it as part of your application.
3. If you claim a Categorical Exemption under SEPA regulations, please cite the sections
of your SEPA procedures, or the section of WAC under which you claim exemption.
Applicant Agency's SEPA Procedure:
WAC:
4. Please describe the categorical exemption in adequate detail for evaluation:
B. HYDRAULIC CODE COMPLIANCE (RCW 75.20.100-140)
1. Is your proposed project located below the Ordinary High Water Line in the bed of any
salt or fresh water of the state?
YES NO
2. If your answer is YES, you are responsible for contacting the Department of Fish and
Wildlife to find out whether they will require a Hydraulic Project Approval for your
proposed work. We will require proof of application before grant funding can be
advanced.
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 20
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
C. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE (RCW 90.58)
1. Is your proposed project located within the boundaries of the Shoreline Management Act
(Including but not limited to: 200 feet of: any marine shoreline or associated wetland; the
banks or associated wetlands of any stream with a flow of 20 cubic feet per second or
greater; or the shoreline or associated wetland of any lake 20 acres in size or larger in
any of the 15 counties west of the crest of the Cascade Mountain range)?
YES NO
2. If you answer YES and your proposal is selected, you will need to apply for a Shoreline
Permit from the appropriate unit of government and submit a copy of the permit, or
exemption, before release of any funding.
D. WETLANDS DISCLOSURE (Governor's Executive Order 90-04)
1. Is there a wetland, as defined by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Clean
Water Act, on the. site or within the immediate vicinity?
YES NO
2. If you answer YES to the above question, we will require that you comply with the
Governor's Executive Order 90-04. This may include the preparation and Department of
Ecology's approval of a WETLANDS COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN. If
applicable, the Department of Ecology must approve the plan before we approve HMGP
funds. Please indicate what actions, if appropriate, you are taking concerning wetlands.
E. FLOODPLAIN DISCLOSURE (RCW 86-16)
1. Is your proposed project in a floodplain designated on a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Map?
YES NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the following:
FEMA Flood Insurance Panel Number:
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Zone Designation
Is your jurisdiction a participant in good standing in the National Flood Insurance
Program?
YES NO
1 159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 21
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
F. PUGET SOUND BASIN DISCLOSURE (RCW 90.70)
1. Is your proposed project in, or part of, a drainage basin that drains into Puget Sound
(identified in RCW 90.70.005 as all salt waters east of Port Angeles and south of the
international boundary line)?
YES NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the basin and sub-basin.
G. CRITICAL AREAS DISCLOSURE (RCW 36.70A)
The Growth Management Act requires all cities and counties in the state to designate critical areas
(RCW 36.70.70A.179(1)(a)) and to adopt development regulations that will protect them (RCW
36.70A.060(2)).
1. Is your proposed project in any of the "Critical Area" classifications identified in
Washington State's Growth Management Act? These areas include: Wetlands, Aquifer
Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas such as
landslide, erosion, alluvial fan, seismically active, or volcanic areas, and Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Areas.
YES NO
2. If you answer YES, please identify the critical area category(s).
3. If your proposed project is in a designated critical area, please explain if and how it will
contribute to further development in the area.
H. CODE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
1. Will your project meet all applicable codes and standards for the area in which it is
located?
YES NO
2. If you answer NO, please describe on a separate sheet the exemptions or variances that
will be required.
1 159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 22
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
I. REGIONAL OR BASIN-WIDE PLANNING
1. How has your jurisdiction coordinated the planning and possible impacts of this project
with neighboring jurisdictions (counties, cities, states, etc.)? Please explain.
2. Will this,project affect upstream/downstream/neighboring jurisdictions? Please explain to
what level this affect will be, or why nothing has been done.
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 23
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
SECTION 11 CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES.
As the duly authorized agent of the applicant, I certify that the information provided below in this
application is true and correct. I further assure that the applicant will comply with all applicable state and
federal regulations concerning the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. I will get all necessary permits and
approvals if the proposed project is awarded Hazard Mitigation Grant funds. I recognize that failure to
comply with all of the applicable state and federal regulations may be grounds for the revocation of
current, or the denial of future, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding.
For projects that involve elevation of individual homes and structures, we must get applicable plans and
permits. A building official currently certified by applicable code organizations (ICBO, etc.) must
accomplish final certification of the elevation portion of the project.
For projects that involve the acquisition/relocation of properties in the floodplain, the following eligibility
criteria and assurances from 44 CFR § 206.434 (d) apply:
(1) We will convey the following restrictive covenants in the deed of any property acquired, accepted,
or from which structures are removed (hereafter called the property).
(i) The property will be dedicated and maintained in perpetuity for uses compatible with open
space, recreational, or wetlands management practices.
(ii) No new structure(s) will be built on the property except as indicated below:
a. A public facility that is open on all sides and functionally related to a designated
open space or recreation use;
b. A restroom; or
C. A structure that is compatible with open space, recreational, or wetlands
management usage and proper floodplain management policies and practices that
the Director approves in writing before the construction of the structure begins.
(iii) After completion of the project, we will not apply for additional DISASTER assistance for
any purpose with respect to the property to any federal entity or source, and no federal
entity or source will provide such assistance.
(2) In general allowable open space, recreational, and wetland management uses include parks for
outdoor recreational activities, nature reserves, cultivation, grazing, camping (except where
adequate warning time is not available to allow evacuation), temporary storage in the open of
wheeled vehicles that are easily movable (except mobile homes), unimproved, previous parking
lots, and buffer zones.
(3) Any structures built on the property will be flood proofed or elevated to the Base Flood Elevation
plus one foot of freeboard.
I further certify that the proposed project has been reviewed by the applicable planning
director/department and found consistent with our adopted comprehensive plan and development
regulations.
I understand that failure to comply with these conditions following the acceptance of any grant funds will
cause the funds to be eligible for an immediate recapture by the State of Washington.
Authorized Signature
Date
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 24
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
SECTION 12. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN APPLICANT'S AGENT.
For the State of Washington Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
BE IT RESOLVED THAT
(Name - Printed) (Title)
Or his/her alternate: ,
(Name - Printed) (Title)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the
a local government entity, state agency, special purpose district, or private nonprofit
organization established under the laws of the State of Washington, this application and to file
in the Military Department, Emergency Management Division for the purpose of obtaining
certain federal and state financial assistance under Section 404 of P.L. 93-288 as amended by
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act of 1988.
THAT the hereby authorizes its agent to provide to
the State Emergency Management Division for all matters concerning such state disaster
mitigation assistance the assurances and agreements required.
Passed and approved this day of , 19
(Signature and Title)
(Signature and Title)
CERTIFICATION
I, duly appointed and
(Name) (Title)
of , do hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the
of the
on the day of , 19
(Signature)
(Title)
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 25
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
J
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 & 11990 CHECKLIST
EO - 11988 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT & EO 11990 - WETLAND PROTECTION
STEP 1. Determine whether the proposed action is located in a wetland and/or the
100 year floodplain (500 year floodplain for critical actions), or whether it
has the potential to affect or be affected by a floodplain or a wetland.
STEP 2. Notify the public at the earliest possible time of the intent to carry out an
action in a floodplain or wetland, and involve the affected and interested
public in the decision-making process.
STEP 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the proposed action
in a floodplain or wetland (including alternatives sites, actions and the "no
action" option). If a practicable alternative exists outside the floodplain or
wetland, FEMA must locate the action at the alternative site.
STEP 4. Identify the full range or potential direct or indirect impacts associated with
the occupancy or modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential
direct and indirect support of floodplain and wetland development that could
result from the proposed action.
STEP 5. Minimize the potential adverse impacts and support to or within floodplains
and wetland to be identified under step 4, restore and preserve the natural
and beneficial values served by floodplains, and preserve and enhance the
natural and beneficial values served by wetlands.
STEP 6. Reevaluate the proposed action to determine first, if it is still practicable in
light of its exposure to flood hazards, the extent to which it will aggravate
the hazards to others, and its potential to disrupt floodplain and wetland
values. Second, if alternatives preliminary rejected at step 3 are practicable
in light of the information gained in steps 4 and 5. FEMA shall not act in a
floodplain or wetland unless it is the only practicable location.
STEP 7. Prepare and provide the public with a finding and public explanation of any
final decision that the floodplain or wetland is the only practicable alternative.
STEP 8. Review the implementation and post-implementation phases of the proposed
action to ensure that the requirements of the order are fully implemented.
Oversight responsibility shall be integrated into existing processes.
1159-DR-WA Winter Storms 1996 26
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application
MAY 1997
A NEPA Roadmap for
SU' bGrantees
y
Bellingham
5 95
9
NEverett
4Seattl 2 S
01 reme . on Leavenwortrh
Bellievue
Tacoma 97
Rltzville 195
12 Olympia Ellensburg
101
Yakima
12 395
{'
Richland Kennewick
Longview
12
26
30 Vancouver Rufus Pendleton
&1
101 P rtland
26 97 8A
197
SalemF . y �
39_
i
Corvallis
101 26 Jol1R a
20
How To Avoid Last Minute Delays &
Snags Over N EPA
KNOW THE ROAD
This road map will guide you along the NEPA process for your
hazard mitigation project. Where will your route take you?
To a Categorical Exclusion? ...or To a Finding of No Funding $
Significant Impact? ...then Federal funding
for your project. Knowing this route
HQ Signoff
in advance will help you get there
without unnecessary delays
and will help minimize Complete EA Send to HQ
any snags in approving Respond to Public Comment
the NEPA document
EA Public Notice
at the end.
Start EA Letter of Intent to Agencies
Site Visit
Determine EA/CATEX/Section 106
Funding $
Determine Eligibility/Benefit Cost
.11
fP .pP
Receive Project
From State �°�
FINDING THE NEPA
o=
U
{
D
r
ai
...
a
ROAD
During mitigation project planning, it's time to take out your NEPA road map. Integrating
NEPA into the planning process and documenting it as you go along will assist you in determining
viable alternatives and a proposed action. Then, by reviewing the Categorical Exclusion
(LATEX) guidelines, you can get an early sense of where your project may be headed. What road
are you on? ...to a CATEX? ....to an Environmental Assessment?
The Environmental Evaluation Center (EEC) at FEMA, Region X, is the destination
location for your NEPA travels. The EEC can help you in this preliminary evaluation of your
project. Some projects are obviously a CATEX; however, some apparent CATEX's could evolve
into an EA, as environmental issues surface during the planning process. But for the obvious
CATEX's, time and effort can be saved by taking this route early.
If your project takes the EA road, adequate
Q {4 documentation of environmental considerations and public
involvement during the planning process is crucial. Most of
a
the delays, in the EA process and getting the EA approved at
FEMA, result from the lack of adequate information and
proper documentation. Contrary to popular opinion, the
environmental assessment is not an after-the-fact report of a
project. The true purpose of the EA is to document how
environmental considerations were integrated into the
planning process from the beginning, including public
involvement, and how this integration has helped determine
Don't be a monster truck with NEPA... the alternatives and proposed action.
By knowing the road ahead, you can avoid a mad scramble at the end or falling into
potholes. FEMA is ready to guide you, as you need it. Call the Environmental Evaluation Center
at (206) 806-2721 to help you along the way.
Driving Down the Mitigation Planning Road
As you roll along scoping out your mitigation project, NEPA should be a
passenger in your car. With mitigation planning and NEPA, you are going in the
same direction.
MITIGATION PLANNING NEPA PASSENGER
ITINERARY
Organize & prepare the plan H Integrate NEPA into the plan
Document public involvement
Involve the public H (who, what, why, where, when)
Early contact with NEPA sensitive
Coordinate with other agencies H agencies...
(USFWS, USACE, NRCS, NMFS, SHPO)
Assess the hazard H Document the purpose & need for a
project
Assess the problem H Document possible solutions
Set goals H Integrate environmental elements
Scoping for alternatives - Include
Review possible activities H environmental fact-finding
Identify at least 2 viable alternatives
Draft an action plan H Describe existing environment
Evaluate alternatives & select
Adopt the plan H proposed action. Document
environmental considerations for each
alternative.
Implement, evaluate, and revise H Assemble data for use in appplication
to State and/or send to FEMA's EEC.
Don't Drive Too Far on a Bad Tire. . . . . .
Will Your Project Be Eligible ?
As you drive down the planning road, ask these ?????
What is the cost & useful life of the project?
What is the frequency of the disaster event?
Is this project from an eligible applicant?
(County/City/Special Districts/Tribe/eligible
Nonprofit Agency or Organization).
Does it conform with the State Hazard Mitigation
Plan developed as a requirement of Section 409 for
the declared disaster, coordinate with other plans,
and contribute to a long-term solution?
Does it meet all applicable codes and standards for
the project locale (i.e., construction, public
notifications, etc.)?
Does it have a direct beneficial impact upon the
designated disaster area, address a repetitive
problem, and substantially reduce the risk of
future damage, hardship, loss?
Does it conform with 44 CFR part 9, Floodplain
Management and Protection of Wetlands;
and 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations?
Does it constitute a complete project?
Can you document that the project will be
completed?
What is the estimated dollar amount of damage
prevented as a direct result of
the proposed project?
What would be the subsequent negative
impacts to the area if the measure were not
implemented? ® �.
A CATEX CHECK-UP
FEMA has resurfaced the Categorical Exclusion route, so that more
hazard mitigation projects will be able to travel this smoother, wider road.
These key elements of the new regulations will accommodate more projects
than before:
L 44 CFR, pt. 10 (d) (xv) "Repair, reconstruction, restoration,
elevation, retrofitting, upgrading to current codes and
standards, or replacement of any facility in a manner that
substantially conforms to the pre-existing design, function, and
location."
44 CFR, pt. 10 (d) (xvi) "Improvements to existing facilities
v and the construction of small scale hazard mitigation measures
in existing developed areas with substantially completed
infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already
been disturbed, and when those actions do not alter basic
functions, do not exceed capacity of other system components,
or modify intended land use; provided the operation of the
completed project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on
the quality of the human environment."
The CATEX route is determined, based on the information in the
application, any additional resources provided, and a site visit. We consider
the project's impact on the environment in these key areas:
wetlands/floodplains..... rare & endangered species.... fisheries resources....
water quality.... coastal zones... historic & archaeological resources.... low
income & minority peoples... and public controversy. Three different types
of CATEX's are possible:
Simple CATEX - No adverse environmental impact and no public
controversy.
Mitigated CATEX - A minimal adverse impact that will be mitigated. This
type of CATEX requires documentation of environmental
impacts and mitigative measures that will be taken.
System CATEX - Includes multiple projects that are similar in the
same or similar geographical area.
IS YOUR ROUTE AN EA ?
For a normal trip, an itinerary is essential to know where you are going. For
a NEPA trip, it is essential for us to also know where you've been.
Where have you been?....... Why exactly is this project needed? What is the
environment at.& around the project area? What are the viable alternatives
including the proposed action? Any notable impacts? Mitigation? How were the
public and public agencies involved in the planning process?
And how can you show us?.....land use & comprehensive plans, preliminary
design & facility plans, watershed or system wide management plans, wetlands
identification map, species list, and any existing studies of the area by other
agencies, and written observations and documentation of public involvement,
including any areas of concern.
What questions do you ask?.......
s
O 4. Why is the project needed? Show repetitive
damage and how the proposed action would
® provide a solution to the problem. Cost or
cost/benefit is not a factor in the EA.
4 What is the Proposed Action, and the second viable
alternative? Be explicit...We can't get down the
Ea's are not Desoto's NEPA road unless we know what we're driving.
4. What are the effects of the alternatives, including the
"no action" alternative, on people and on the environment?
4. What historic/archaeological resources exist in the project area and
which are affected by the project?
4. How have agencies and the public been involved? Agencies that must respond to
the EA are the State Historic Preservation Office, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and when anadromous fish are present,
the National Marine Fisheries Service. Special consideration is given in the EA
for project impact on Wetlands and Floodplains.
A reminder.....
If you need a NEPA tune-up,
carburetor adjustment,
or just some oil or gas.
Cthe Environmental Evaluation Center at FEMA
(206) 806-2721
We're here to serve you
and help make your NEPA trip ,
.....a sm000000th one.
A