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 TMI

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: National Historic Environmental Justice Preservation Act Floodplains Wetlands NEPA NEPA is an umbrella law. It is the cornerstone of the environmental review process. NEPA, and the other federal laws and executive orders listed here are designed to protect our country’s natural, cultural, social, and economic resources; they form the basis for FEMA’s EHP review process. Note that NEPA is in the middle. This is representative of how FEMA uses it as the keystone of the environmental review process to address all other laws, regulations, and Executive Orders as well. Clean Air Act Coastal Barrier Clean Water Act Resources Act Resource Conservation & Coastal Zone Recovery Act 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 There are varying definitions of “construction.” GPD defines it differently that OEHP does. Need to discuss.

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 There are varying definitions of “construction.” GPD defines it differently that OEHP does. Need to discuss.

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 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/ehp-applicant-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 askcsid@dhs.gov.

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 jeffrey.hall1@dhs.gov