FEMA NEPA COMPLIANCE TRAINING PROGRAM

advertisement
INTRODUCTION TO FEMA’S
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING &
HISTORIC PRESERVATION (EHP)
COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
FEMA’s EHP Review
• It is FEMA’s policy to integrate
environmental and historic
preservation considerations into its
emergency preparedness, hazard
mitigation, disaster planning, and
response and recovery activities.
• This work is accomplished through
FEMA’s Environmental Planning and
Historic Preservation (EHP)
Compliance Requirements process.
What are potential EHP compliance
considerations?
• Endangered Species
• Cultural Resources
• historic properties &
districts
• archaeological sites
• Air & water quality
• Habitat
• Fish & Wildlife
• Floodplains
• Wetlands
• Coastal Zones
• Agricultural Lands
• Geology
•
•
•
•
Environmental Justice
Land Use
Hazardous Materials
Traffic
Potential Environmental Impacts
•New ground disturbance activities
•Air/water pollution
•Habitat destruction
•Impacts to breeding &
feeding areas or patterns
•Altered viewsheds
•Alteration of historic properties & districts
FEMA’s EHP Compliance Review
Overseen by FEMA’s Office of Environmental
Planning and Historic Preservation (OEHP)
– HQ office in Washington, DC
– Ten Regional offices
• Regional Environmental Officer & some
support staff
EHP compliance is the responsibility of FEMA Grant
Programs; OEHP serves as a technical support
office
Who is OEHP
•
FEMA’s Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (OEHP)
engages in a review process to ensure that FEMA-funded projects and
activities comply with various Federal laws to include:
– National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
– National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
– Endangered Species Act (ESA)
– Clean Water Act (CWA)
– Clean Air Act (CAA)
– Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
– Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
– Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
– Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
– Executive Order 11988 – Floodplains Management
– Executive Order 11990 – Wetland Protection
– Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice
EHP Laws and Executive Orders: The basis for
FEMA’s EHP Review
Endangered Species Act
Executive Orders:
Environmental Justice
Floodplains
Wetlands
National Historic
Preservation Act
NEPA
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Resource Conservation &
Recovery Act
Coastal Barrier
Resources Act
Coastal Zone
Management Act
FEMA’s EHP Compliance Review
• Is required by Federal laws, regulations and Executive
Orders
• Ensures FEMA actions, including grant-funded projects,
are in compliance with EHP requirements
• Review must be complete before work is initiated and any
project is funded
• Grantee must comply with any conditions placed on
project as result of EHP review
FEMA’s EHP Compliance Review
 The goal of the environmental compliance
requirements is to protect our nation’s water,
air, coastal, fish and wildlife, agricultural,
historical, and cultural resources, as well as
to minimize potential adverse effects to
children, low-income, and minority
populations
 Submitted environmental requests assists
the federal government in making informed
decisions
FEMA’s EHP Compliance Review
May require consultation with resource and
regulatory agencies, including:
• State Historic Preservation Office
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• US Army Corps of Engineers
FEMA’s EHP Review
May require preparation of written analyses or
agreements required under EHP laws, including:
- Environmental Assessment (NEPA)
- Biological Assessment (ESA)
- Memorandum of Agreement (NHPA)
Some EHP laws and EOs require public
involvement & a public comment period
Environmental Review Conditions
• An environmental review must be completed prior to the
initiation or completion of any project work.
• Initiating work before an environmental review is completed
may result in a non-compliance finding and the withholding
of grant funds.
• All changes to the scope of work (SOW) of a project must be
resubmitted for environmental review.
• If an approved project has a change in the SOW, the grantee
must stop work and wait for the environmental review to be
completed and approved on the new SOW before re-initiating
work.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
• Project delays
• Denial of funding
• De-obligation of funding
• Negative publicity
• Civil penalties
• Lawsuits
Environmental Review Process
•
•
•
•
Grantee submits project request through the SAA/FA/Tribal Government/Private
Entity
SAA/FA/Tribal Government/Private Entity reviews project request and submits
electronically to PA
PA ensures all necessary documentation is included in grant application and
submits a complete file to GPD/EHP liaison with EHP Documentation Memo
GPD/EHP liaison reviews documentation and confirms likely environmental
impact, if any
– If project/action does not require further environmental review (i.e equipment, training),
grant will be approved as a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) and PA is notified and
given approval documentation or by email
– If project/action does require further environmental review it will be forwarded to EHP
which will work with the REO’s.
•
GPD/EHP liaison will notify applicant’s PA of EHP’s decision
– If approved, PA will be given approval documentation for communication to grantee
– If additional documentation is requested, grantee will be notified by PA
Projects that can be CATEX’d
• Project types/actions that are not likely to have any impact on
the environment, barring extraordinary circumstances.
• Purchases of equipment including vehicles, boats, ID cards,
hand-held or portable equipment, navigation or
communication equipment, or other supplies for mobile units.
(Note: Please provide information on how the equipment will
be installed)
• Classroom and web-based training, conferences and
workshops conducted within enclosed facilities.
• Personnel, administrative, fiscal and management activities
that involve no resources other than manpower and/or
funding.
CATEX’s (Continued)
• Installation of security measures on mobile units (buses, train
cars, ferries, etc.) that are less than 50 years old and are not
national landmarks.
• Development, revision, documentation, and/or distribution of
regulations, directives, manuals, information bulletins, and
other guidance documents.
• Technical assistance activities that involve no resources other
than manpower and/or funding.
• Field-based training activities and exercises that use existing
facilities, established and approved procedures, and conform
with existing land use designations.
Projects requiring initial review then
CATEX’d
Project types/actions that are not likely to have any impact on
the environment, barring extraordinary circumstances, as long as
certain project conditions are met (i.e. no ground disturbance). If
those conditions are not met or extraordinary circumstances exist, then
the project must be submitted for EHP review. General conditions are
listed below, followed by specific project types and their conditions.
– Project does not directly or indirectly involve any new ground
disturbing activities such as utility/sewer/electric lines or other
underground conduits, fencing, gates, poles, foundations, etc.;
– Project does not involve new construction (Emergency
Operations Center [EOC], guard station, fire station, equipment
shed, dock/wharf, communication tower, etc.).
Preparedness Project Types that Trigger
EHP Review
•
•
•
•
Communication towers
New construction
New ground disturbance activities
Modification of buildings and structures 50+
years old & impacts on historic districts
Communication Towers
Consider all elements of project:
• Tower location, height and design
(lattice or guy wires)
• Use of aviation lighting
• Security fencing and lighting
• Equipment building
• Access road
• Equipment staging area
New Construction
Examples:
•
•
•
•
•
Security guard building
Dock/pier
Boat house
Road
Towers
New ground disturbance activities
Examples:
• Installation of physical security enhancements including
fencing, lighting, cameras, & pedestrian or vehicle
barriers, etc.
•
In particular:
– Does the project involve new ground
disturbance activities?
Modification of Buildings &
Structures 50+ Years Old
Examples:
• Equipment installation (e.g.
physical security/access
controls) on, in, or in the vicinity
of historic buildings, piers,
bridges, ferries, rail cars, etc.
• Building renovation/hardening
(e.g. doors, gates, windows)
Tips for a Timely EHP Review
Take EHP considerations into account during project
planning and budgeting
• Easier to avoid or resolve issues if identified early
• Reach out to state resource agencies early
Provide detailed project Statement of Work to FEMA
• See Information Bulletin #271
What work is being proposed, where will it take
place, and how will it be carried out?
Tips for a Timely EHP Review
Be aware that EHP review may increase timeline for
project implementation
Grant funds may be used for preparation of EHP
reports
Notify FEMA if Port’s Master Plan included previous
environmental analysis or public involvement, and
provide any such documentation to FEMA
Project Planning
The following factors affect the amount of time it takes to
complete the EHP Review:
• completeness of the project Statement of Work (SOW)
• complexity of the project
• project location & the types of resources affected
• whether consultation with SHPO, FWS. etc. (required
under certain laws) is needed
Roles and Responsibilities
FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate –
• Incorporates EHP compliance requirements into
grant programs and processes
• Conducts initial screening of projects for EHP
considerations (i.e. identification of potential impacts
to natural or biological resources or historic
properties)
• Submits complex projects to FEMA’s Office of
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
(OEHP) for further review, if appropriate
Roles and Responsibilities
FEMA’s Office of Environmental Planning & Historic
Preservation –
• Conducts and documents the EHP compliance review
of those GPD-funded projects with potential to impact
the environment or historic properties
• Consults with resource and regulatory agencies
• Provides policy guidance and subject matter expertise
to support GPD’s EHP compliance responsibilities
• Identifies opportunities to improve integration of EHP
requirements into FEMA programs
EHP Review of Port Security Grant
Program (PSGP) Projects
Since integration into FEMA in April 2007:
• 70 FY04-07 PSGP projects submitted to
OEHP for review
• 45 reviews completed
Information Bulletin No. 271
TO:
All State Administrative Agency Heads
All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact
All State Homeland Security Directors
Transit Security Chiefs
FROM:
Tracey Trautman, Director
Grant Development and Administration, Grant Programs Directorate
SUBJECT: Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Requirements for Grants
This Information Bulletin (IB) provides general guidance to grantees on environmental planning and
historic preservation (EHP) requirements for grant funded projects involving communication
towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, renovation, and modifications to
buildings and structures that are 50 years old or older. This IB applies to all such projects
(regardless of Fiscal Year award) funded by the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), the
Infrastructure Protection Program (IPP), and the Emergency Management Performance Grants
Program (EMPG). These projects have the potential to affect environmental resources and
historic properties through ground disturbance, impact to wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, and
other water resources, alteration of historically-significant properties, and impact to threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds. Consequently, FEMA engages in a compliance review
process to ensure proposed projects comply with applicable federal EHP laws, regulations, and
Executive Orders.
Information Bulletin No. 271 Continued:
Statement of Work
Statement of Work
A Statement of Work (SOW) is required to be developed and submitted to FEMA prior
to the initiation of projects referenced in this IB. Essential elements and information to
include in the SOW are:
• Basic project information (name of project, name of grant and grantee, grant award
number, fiscal year, overall purpose and scope of the project, estimated cost, etc.).
• Precise location of the project (street address, city, and state, or latitude and
longitude coordinates).
• Visual documentation (site/structure photographs; plans/drawings that define the size
and precise location of proposed work; US Geological Survey topographic, flood and
wetlands maps; aerial photographs, etc.).
• Description of the project, including (as applicable):
• Dimensions/acreage/square footage of structure and/or land affected, with height and
structural support information for all communication towers.
• Extent and depth of ground disturbance for new construction and structure
modification, including trenching for utility lines, installation of fencing and light posts,
tower footings and pads, etc.
• Special elements of the project, including:
• Special equipment that will be used, staging areas, access roads, easements, etc.
• Extent of structural modification.
Information Bulletin No. 271 Continued:
Statement of Work
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Year affected building/structure was built (if applicable).
Information about features, resources, and potential adverse impacts at
or near the site, including:
Water bodies (rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, etc.).
Floodplains.
Historic and cultural resources (historic districts, buildings, landscapes, bridges,
piers, dams, archaeological sites, etc.).
Migratory birds.
Threatened and endangered species and/or critical habitat.
Vegetation, including general types of plants, trees, or lack thereof.
Geologic features.
Tribal cultural and religious sites.
Special areas (forests, wildlife refuges, reserves, etc.).
– Any recent or relevant studies, reports, or surveys that were prepared for
other agencies or purposes and provide information on environmental
resources and/or historic properties in the project area.
Information Bulletin No. 271 Continued:
EHP Requirements
Site selection is a key factor that can affect the number and complexity of EHP issues
that may need to be addressed for a project. Grantees are responsible for identifying
environmental resources and historic properties in the project area, which may
require coordination with appropriate local, State and/or Federal resource agencies.
This information should be included in the SOW and submitted to FEMA in the initial
stage of project formulation.
Based on the review of the SOW, FEMA may determine that projects with the
potential to have significant adverse impacts to EHP resources and/or public
controversy require additional evaluation and documentation, and FEMA will notify
the grantee accordingly. Documents required to fulfill compliance responsibilities
under Federal EHP laws must be prepared by qualified professionals with EHP
expertise and may require a public comment period. Grantees are responsible for the
preparation of such documents as well as for the implementation of any mitigation
measures identified during FEMA’s EHP review that are necessary to address
potential adverse impacts. Costs associated with the preparation of EHP documents
are allowable grant expenditures.
Inadequate project descriptions and/or documentation of the presence of
environmental resources and historic properties in a project area may cause
significant delays in the timeliness of the review and affect the project’s
implementation. Failure of the grantee to meet all Federal, State and local EHP
requirements, comply with project conditions established during FEMA’s EHP review,
and/or obtain applicable permits and approvals may result in project delays or the
denial of funding.
Information Bulletin No. 271 Continued:
FEMA EHP Review Process
Grantees must submit SOWs electronically through their authorized State
SAA (or designee) to their FEMA preparedness officer. Preferred
submission formats are those supported by Microsoft Office (doc files), and
Adobe Acrobat (pdf files). JPEG is the preferred picture format but other
widely supported file types may be used. Project reviews may take several
weeks or months to complete, so sufficient time and resources must be
incorporated into the project planning process to accommodate EHP
requirements. Grantees must receive written approval from FEMA prior to
the use of grant funds for project implementation.
Additional information regarding EHP compliance requirements for
FEMA-funded grant projects is available on the FEMA website at:
http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/ehpapplicant-help.shtm. Questions may be directed to your
designated preparedness officer or to the Centralized Scheduling and
Information Desk at 1-800-368-6498 or via email at [email protected]
Sources of EHP Guidance
A variety of information is available at:
http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp
Helpful Resources
• Questions?
• For more information contact:
Jeff Hall (202) 786-9778 or [email protected]
Download
Related flashcards

Project management

14 cards

Project management

37 cards

Extreme programming

17 cards

Time-tracking software

21 cards

Create Flashcards