Subapplicants can leverage EHP requirements in the scoping process to develop resilient mitigation projects and avoid, minimize and mitigate any adverse effects of mitigation projects on natural and cultural resources and on minority and low-income populations and tribes. All projects proposed for FEMA funding must comply with EHP laws, regulations and executive orders. The National Environmental Policy Act requires FEMA and other federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions prior to making decisions or funding projects. Like the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effect of their actions on historic properties.[63]
FEMA must also ensure a proposed project is compliant with other federal laws, regulations, and executive orders such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act);[64] the Endangered Species Act of 1973;[65] and EO 11988, as amended by EO 13690 and EO 11990 on the Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977). EO 12898 on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Feb. 11, 1994) requires federal agencies to consider disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income communities related to federal programs, policies and activities. Environmental justice is considered during the National Environmental Policy Act process, when individual projects are reviewed or programmatic actions are considered. Furthermore, EO 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2021) requires the federal government to pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.
Many EHP laws, regulations and executive orders require a decision-making process to consider alternatives and impacts to resources during project scoping. Early consideration of EHP resources in the project scoping phase will allow communities to design projects that avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts of projects to natural and cultural resources as well as minority and low-income populations and tribes.
For example, some key EHP considerations include:
- Whether the proposed project is in an area with threatened and endangered species or in the threatened and endangered species’ designated critical habitat.
- Whether the proposed project might impact historic or cultural resources.
- Whether the proposed project will have a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority populations or tribes.
- Whether the proposed project will involve work in water, floodplains, wetlands or coastal zones.
If the project could result in adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources or have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations or tribes, then EHP laws, regulations or executive orders may:
- Have time and cost implications for a project.
- Include additional award conditions (such as permits or timing restrictions) imposed by FEMA.
- Require the applicant or subapplicant to consider alternatives, identify alternate locations, and, as necessary, modify the project.
- Require mitigation measures to resolve adverse effects or impacts resulting from the project.
By considering natural and cultural resources in the project scoping phase, applicants and subapplicants may be able to resolve issues of concern earlier in the process, prior to significant commitment of time and resources. Refer to Part 4 for an overview of incorporating the EHP and the National Environmental Policy Act process in project scoping.
Early consideration of natural and cultural resources in the project scoping process can also help develop resilient mitigation projects and advance environmental stewardship in communities. Applicants and subapplicants should consider those resources to identify opportunities for the design of projects to enhance, restore or preserve natural and cultural resources and to provide additional ecosystem services to a community. This approach can lead to better mitigation outcomes. For example, mitigation project types that create open space, such as property acquisitions and innovative drought and flood mitigation activities, can provide conservation benefits to species and habitats. Early consideration of cultural resources can help identify mitigation approaches that preserve historical resources from hazards without adversely affecting their historic, aesthetic or cultural value.
During project scoping, applicants and subapplicants should research prior activities close to the proposed project location, such as identifying EHP reviews undertaken by federal, state or local commissions or agencies for previously completed projects, gathering EHP data, and reaching out to stakeholders and regulatory agencies for pertinent information. Applicants and subapplicants should use the EHP Checklist (refer to Table 7) and the FEMA “Environmental & Historic Preservation Grant Preparation Resources” webpage to help identify EHP issues and consider natural and cultural resources when scoping a project and developing a project application. Advance assistance, pre-award costs, phasing assistance and technical assistance are available mechanisms to consider the EHP requirements in the early stages. For more information, refer to Part 6.
To help applicants and subapplicants develop project scopes, federal and state regulatory agencies may offer pre-application consultation meetings to provide informal discussions about proposed activities, alternatives and measures for reducing impacts. These agencies may include but are not limited to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered species; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to Coastal Barrier Resource System zones and bald or golden eagles; National Marine Fisheries Service for impacts to essential fish habitat or marine mammals; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for projects in navigable waters or that involve dredging or filling in waters of the United States. State and tribal agencies may include the departments of environmental protection, historic preservation offices, and local floodplain administrators.
Public engagement is an integral part of EHP reviews and project development and is required for compliance with many EHP laws, regulations and executive orders. Public input can help identify potential impacts to natural and cultural resources, low-income and minority communities, and tribes. Public input can also help shape project scopes to provide better mitigation outcomes.
Subapplicants may assist FEMA in planning public engagement strategies and with publishing public notices on community websites, in newspapers or on social media. In their subapplications, subapplicants should describe any existing or planned public engagement activities and feedback received from the public regarding the project.
