Archives

Become Climate Resilient: Changes You Can Make to Prepare for Increasingly Extreme Weather Events

The newest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, released in August 2021, summarizes global climate change science and impacts, and concludes we are at a “code red for humanity.” The report confirms the rise of more frequent extreme weather events due to climate change throughout all regions of the globe, including the United States (US). About one in three Americans experienced a climate disaster during the summer this year. These increasingly frequent and intense natural disaster events underscore the importance of National Preparedness Month.

Climate Change Preparedness and Mitigation Tips

The first step in preparing for an increase in extreme weather events is understanding how climate change affects you and your community; then you can take action to protect yourself and others from the devastation brought by these events.

How Does Climate Change Affect You and What Can You Do About It?

Here are some steps you can take to understand how climate change and the hazards it creates affect you, and how to prepare for them:

  • Identify what natural hazards are prominent in your area. This is a vital first step that will allow you to customize your preparations. There are various online tools to help you with this, including this interactive map of climate threats. You can assess risks to your property through tools like Flood Factor, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service’s wildfire risk map, and the US Drought Monitor. Additionally, look for hazard assessments from your state or local government, which are often provided through county or city open data websites or through high-resolution maps in hazard mitigation, comprehensive land use, or sustainability plans.
  • Prepare for extreme weather events. Different weather events require different types of preparations. Once you know the most common natural disasters where you live, you can start to prepare. Ready.gov has an emergency preparedness checklist and Hagerty’s first 2021 Preparedness Month post offers important, lesser-known preparedness actions. It’s especially important to prepare for extreme weather events by reviewing what your home and/or renters insurance policy covers (and doesn’t), and by organizing important documents and backups. Updating your insurance coverage and having backup documents at-hand may help you repair or rebuild more efficiently after an extreme event.
  • Build a strong local network. Strong social networks help individuals and communities better withstand and recover from disasters. Prepare for climate change and extreme weather events by reflecting on what help you may need and what assistance you may be able to provide to your neighbors, then start building those critical social connections. Consider participating in or hosting an event like Neighborfest, an innovative community preparedness and connection celebration in a block party format.
  • Adapt your home and property to withstand local hazards. There are several ways you can weather-proof your home and its surrounding landscape to minimize damage from extreme weather. Consider how to “harden” (i.e., protect) against damages and how to mitigate (i.e., reduce risk). For example, you can harden your home against flooding by sealing cracks in your foundation and basement walls, and you can lessen flood risk by creating natural green spaces with local plant species (instead of impervious surfaces like asphalt and concrete) to better absorb water. The Firewise USA program offers specific, easy to understand guidance for homes in wildfire-risk zones. Extreme weather events often contribute to power outages, so climate-proofing your home also involves preparing for extended outages.

How Can You Help Slow Climate Change?

Climate change is a global problem and addressing the root causes of climate change is critical to protecting ourselves and our communities over the long-term.

  • Choose strategies to reduce your carbon footprint. Our daily choices – such as how we travel, what we eat, the materials in our clothing, and the temperature we set the thermostat – have a significant impact when aggregated. Carbon footprint calculators estimate the amount of greenhouse emissions generated by our daily activities. Try the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Household Carbon Footprint Calculator to find out how your carbon footprint compares to the US average and how you can reduce your environmental impact.
  • Advocate for climate mitigation solutions. Decreasing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions substantially enough in the timeframe needed to avoid catastrophic consequences requires large-scale coordination, not just individual action. Encourage climate action in your community by voting in all elections, showing up for public comment events, volunteering with environmental organizations, and/or engaging with local decision-makers.

Conclusion

Extreme weather events are increasing in intensity, frequency, and cost. Planning as individuals and households for the climate extremes that affect us is a critical component of emergency preparedness overall.

Elizabeth Foster is a Senior Managing Associate in Hagerty’s Preparedness Division. Ms. Foster works with Hagerty’s clients on climate resilience, disaster recovery planning, and continuity of operations projects. Prior to joining Hagerty, she managed technical assistance focused on development and land use strategies to improve urban resilience with the Urban Land Institute. Elizabeth also served as a Disaster Risk Reduction & Management Program Officer for the US Peace Corps in Amlan, Philippines, supporting the municipality’s capacity to implement climate change adaptation and disaster management programs.

Gianna Christopher is Hagerty’s Coordination and Administration Associate within the Preparedness Division. She supports the division by creating written publications, performing Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) on important documents as requested with tight deadlines, as well as performing other assorted administrative tasks.

Additional resources

THE NEXT GENERATION OF BRIC PROJECTS

As the impacts and effects of climate change are realized, the needs to reduce hazard risks in communities across the country are rapidly multiplying.  The passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) in October 2018 has, and will continue to have, a transformative impact on the field of emergency management. Specifically, the DRRA has had a major impact on the Federal Emergency Management Associate (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs through the introduction of FEMA’s new pre-disaster mitigation program, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). While BRIC represents an important step forward in providing a reliable source of mitigation funding to state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments, the goal and intent of the program has exposed many underlying process and policy limits related to HMA programs.  Below we identify some mitigation challenges practitioners are facing across the country, as well as some items that FEMA may want to consider addressing as its programs continue to evolve to meet the quickly changing mitigation needs of our nation.

MISCELLANEOUS project types

As FEMA rolls out its first year of BRIC grants, state and local entities are busy developing eligible, cost-effective, feasible, and nationally competitive projects. FEMA encourages state and local entities to pursue activities that best address priorities in their community including projects that address climate change adaptation and resiliency.  At this time,  these activities are listed as miscellaneous/other in the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance (2015) and they assist communities in “adapting to new challenges posed by more powerful storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, prolonged droughts, extreme flooding, higher sea levels, and other weather events.” As our country experiences historic wildfires, an unprecedented pandemic, and a hyperactive hurricane season, the miscellaneous/other activities likely offer the best opportunity to address the evolving risks we continue to see in 2020 as well as the conditions forecasted in decades to come. As communities seek to address their mitigation needs through more innovative means than those identified in FEMA’s 2015 HMA Guidance, it has become apparent that a highly flexible, malleable project type is needed which comports with BRIC’s stated goal of finding new ways to mitigate risk to infrastructure and reducing our collective risk to all-hazards.

FEMA Eligible Activities by Program: Source

Mitigation to Migration

As the climate changes, unmitigated sea level rise, extreme weather, and drought have created a need to relocate or migrate people and assets to a new, more stable location. In some instances, communities have already sought FEMA HMA grant funding to address this need. To address these evolving conditions, projects like managed retreat, infrastructure relocation, and wildfire buyout programs may be required.

Currently, FEMA HMA Guidance includes private property buyout project options for flood and landslide hazards; however, wildfire mitigation includes projects that are limited to hazardous fuels reduction, defensible space, and ignition resistant construction, but does not include the option for private property buyout. As we have seen this year, if megafires more frequently become gigafires, there could become a need to relocate communities and infrastructure to a more sustainable and fire safe landscape within of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). This is one example of the adaptability which will be required to mitigate anticipated hazards and changing conditions which will increase our resilience and reduce our nation’s long-term risks and exposure to these changing conditions.

All-Hazards Adaptability

During the COVID-19 pandemic, States on both the East and West coasts had to grapple with the need to open emergency shelters and surge healthcare facilities due to hurricanes and wildfires. While the FEMA HMA Guidance doesn’t allow for standalone pandemic mitigation projects, FEMA acknowledges in its recent Guide to Expanding Mitigation that public health co-benefits can be identified in structural mitigation projects. Given this guidance, projects with co-benefits or ancillary benefits related to a pandemic, but outside of the project’s primary risk reduction objective, could be included in the project’s scope. As outlined in the BRIC Qualitative Scoring other ancillary benefits include: “water/air quality, habitat creation, energy efficiency, economic opportunity, reduced social vulnerability, cultural resources, and mental health”.

Flexibility for Future Conditions

A multi-hazard approach to mitigation projects also contends with the reality that current and future mitigation must address the compounding effects of climate change on natural hazards. For example, to mitigate stormwater impacts, FEMA’s Nature-Based Solutions provides guidance on watershed, neighborhood, and coastal area project types. Many of these stormwater projects including greenways, permeable pavement, green roofs, and tree canopies can also be effective at mitigating extreme heat and the urban heat island effect. While projects that mitigate heat waves are listed as an eligible miscellaneous/other activity, how to quantify the impacts of this hazard in the FEMA benefit-cost analysis (BCA) tool remains undefined.

As an example, potential benefits (avoided losses) could explore how to quantify increased costs of healthcare, increased hospitalization, and increased energy use, as many residents of California experienced earlier this year.

To translate miscellaneous/other activities into quantifiable mitigation opportunities, the FEMA BCA toolkit needs to provide a more robust way to quantify the benefits of addressing these increasing hazards and future conditions. FEMA’s sea level rise policy has been in effect since 2013 and has helped evaluate how climate change considerations can be incorporated into HMA grants. FEMA recently updated its ecosystem service benefits in BCA policy to allow these benefits to be used regardless of the project’s benefit cost ratio (BCR). FEMA made “this change in recognition that the environment is an important component of a community’s resilience strategy”. Other BCA considerations to increase the cost-effectiveness of innovative, multi-hazard projects would be the development of new pre-calculated benefits, including additional environmental, social, and recreational benefit calculations/methodologies, and updating the outdated, assumptive models to account for future conditions.

Expedited Funding Opportunities

In some instances, there is a critical need for Applicants to quickly submit sub-applications to FEMA so they may review, approve, and award projects.  An example of this are property acquisitions and quick-implementation projects in the post-fire environment necessary to mitigate the impacts of erosion and debris upon people and property downstream of impacted watersheds.  In these instances, it is critical Applicants develop the ability to quickly identify these projects, assist communities with sub-application development as well as work with their FEMA counterparts to develop a system which quickly conveys these projects through the award process.  It is also critical that eligible applicants work closely with eligible sub-applicants pre-award to ensure that should this fast track process be implemented, local communities are able to quickly procure the necessary resources to implement the project in compliance with applicable federal regulations.

Recommendations for 2020 and Beyond

As the BRIC program and our mitigation needs evolve, the next generation of Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance will undoubtedly need to adapt to meet our future needs. To successfully do so, all mitigation partners and practitioners should work closely together to address the items identified below:

  • Provide standardized implementation guidance for HMA projects across the FEMA regions to reduce the potential for conflicting approaches between regions.
  • Expand eligible activities to better reflect current and future conditions and broadly market these so they are well known and utilized as appropriate – otherwise, miscellaneous/other will become a prevalent project type.
  • Reconsider duplication of programs as large infrastructure projects may require extensive collaboration and funding from multiple Federal partners to ensure high-impact projects can be built.
  • Revisit previously ineligible activities, such as prescribed burns, which might serve a critical wildfire mitigation role.
  • Better define project-phasing best practices to provide unified guidance on the design development and level of detail needed in a BCA for phased projects. A common question is at what stage of design development does a project require phasing.
  • Expand the current list of pre-calculated benefits and consider the use of pre-calculated benefits for property acquisition in high risk WUI areas and projects that incorporate one or more of the identified nature-based solutions.
  • Expand traditional benefits in the FEMA BCA tool to streamline the valuation of ancillary benefits and future conditions (heat, drought, newly eligible activities under the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, etc.); identify best practices used by other Federal agencies to identify and quantify project benefits to include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
  • Align FEMA programmatic guidance and BCA methodologies to support the projects identified in the FEMA Mitigation Action Portfolio. Currently, the FEMA MAP includes projects that are not funded by FEMA and do not use FEMA BCA methodologies. Many of these projects would likely be ineligible or not cost-effective using FEMA’s current HMA eligibility and application development mechanisms.

With further evolution of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program, governments and communities will be granted a better opportunity to develop the next generation of BRIC competitive projects – projects that make the most of limited mitigation funding by anticipating changes in our environment and being responsive to those future conditions.

Hagerty is here to help. While the cost share for this program is 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal, FEMA will provide 100 percent federal funding for management costs associated with the administration of a BRIC-awarded mitigation measure or project. Therefore, our professionals can help at little-to-no additional cost.

Hagerty’s Mitigation Team are experts in navigating the pre- and post-disaster funding world. We are available to talk about your recovery needs, including how to access all funding available through federal grant programs. To learn more, contact us.

___________________________________________________________________________

Amelia Muccio is the Director of Mitigation at Hagerty Consulting and a subject matter expert in disaster recovery. With over 15 years of experience in public health, disaster preparedness, mitigation, and financial recovery, Amelia has helped clients obtain $5 billion in federal funds after major disasters, including Hurricane Sandy, the California Wildfires, and Hurricane Harvey.

Scott Baldwin is a Senior Mitigation Manager at Hagerty Consulting and a subject matter expert in natural hazard mitigation in both the pre and post disaster recovery environments.  With over 10 years of experience in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Public Assistance (PA) programs, Scott has worked closely with states and communities in Colorado and California to identify, develop, and implement mitigation and recovery solutions tailored to meet their needs.

Vanessa Castillo is a mitigation and planning specialist with experience in the implementation of the FEMA mitigation programs. Before joining Hagerty, she was a planner with the City of Denver where she specialized in environmental compliance. Prior to Denver, she was a Mitigation Specialist with the state of Colorado where she contributed her expertise to the successful implementation of more than $65 million in Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for Colorado’s largest disaster.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL DISASTERS

While often disassociated from conversations about natural disasters, science has shown that our planet’s changing climate is responsible for the increasing frequency and magnitude of natural disasters. As such, climate change (i.e., changes in atmospheric behavior over an extended period) and disaster management should be viewed through a holistic and interconnected lens.

Additionally, natural disasters should not be considered completely independent of one another. One natural disaster may create the environment for another one to occur. For example, climate change increases drought, and drought creates an ideal environment for wildfires.

Below are some of the ways that climate change exacerbates natural disasters as well as some resiliency tips for you and your community to consider as you seek to mitigate future disaster risk.

HEAT WAVES

The American Meteorological Society defines heat waves as a “period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot and usually humid weather.” Extreme heat poses a legitimate risk to communities across the globe. For instance, the European Heat Wave of 2003 resulted in an estimated 70,000 deaths. Furthermore, heat waves pose a great threat to the natural environment, especially biological ecosystems and species that cannot survive repetitive bouts of extreme heat; from salmon in the Pacific Northwest to the Great Barrier Reefs in Australia – aquatic species are especially threatened because rising heat reduces oxygen in the waters.

THE CORRELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

As heat trapping emissions become more concentrated in the atmosphere and temperatures rise, extreme heat waves are expected to become longer, more frequent, and more severe. Although heat waves are a normal occurrence, the frequency with which they occur is likely to continue growing as the general atmospheric climate continues to warm, as outlined in the visual below.

HEATWAVE RESILIENCE TIPS FOR COMMUNITIES 

  • Reduce the urban heat island effect by installing green roofs and cool pavement;
  • Improve energy efficiency to reduce demand on the electricity grid during heat waves; and
  • Plant trees to provide natural shade and cooling.

DROUGHT

Drought has been a huge problem in the US over the past 20 years. This summer, the vast majority of the Western US experienced abnormally dry conditions – some areas suffering from extreme to exceptional drought. Droughts can threaten the agricultural sector and water supplies in communities across the country.

THE CORRELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Over time, increasing global temperatures have resulted and will continue to result in more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, earlier snow melt, and increased evaporation. When there is less snow overall and snow melts earlier in the year, it leaves ecosystems, agricultural lands, and drinking water reserves parched by late summer. Drought is a symptom of climate change and it amplifies as global temperatures increase.

DROUGHT RESILIENCE TIPS FOR COMMUNITIES 

  • Identify areas where water re-use systems could be implemented;
  • Improve watershed sustainability and reduce irrigation demand through partnering with local agricultural communities to fund and implement sustainable water-use practices;
  • Run public education campaigns about drought, the importance of water conservation, and water efficient landscape design; and
  • Establish processes in collaboration with local utilities to encourage water conservation from businesses and industrial facilities.

WILDFIRES

This year alone, over 7 million acres of land have been impacted by wildfires and over 42,000 fires have ignited across the US. Wildfires pose a huge threat to human safety and property, and they also pose a dire threat to wildlife and natural habitats.

THE CORRELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Drying and drought caused by an increase in global temperatures creates the perfect environment and fuel for wildfires. In other words, increases in evapotranspiration and spring snow melt leaves vegetation dry and vulnerable to both human and natural fire-starting activities (i.e., bonfires, fireworks, cigarettes, lightening). It is estimated that climate change in the American West has accounted for half the increase in vegetation dryness since 1979.

WILDFIRE RESILIENCE TIPS FOR COMMUNITIES 

  • Establish zoning, building codes, and landscape management guidelines that reduce or discourage development in the wildland-urban interface (WUI);
  • Ensure proper vegetation and forest management, in collaboration with ecological organizations and experts, through debris removal and brush thinning; and
  • Conduct public education campaigns and outreach to stress the importance of preventative and informed behavior.

FLOODS

Flooding occurs every year in the US, sometimes as a result of hurricanes and sometimes entirely independent from other natural disasters. Almost every year since 1980, at least one billion-dollar flood event has occurred in the US. Flooding can destroy buildings, infrastructure, and ecosystems; contaminate drinking water; and take lives.

THE CORRELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Flooding has been a long-standing threat to communities in the US, but it has increased in severity due to climate change. As the climate gets warmer, ground moisture and saturation decreases, preventing regular and effective absorption of liquids into soil. Additionally, warmer air can hold more moisture, resulting in heavier precipitation. Heavy precipitation events drop 55 percent more rain in the Northeast, 42 percent more in the Midwest, and 27 percent more in the Southeast, compared with heavy precipitation events 50 years ago. Sea level rise due to climate change will also likely increase flooding in coastal communities in the years to come.

FLOOD RESILIENCE TIPS FOR COMMUNITIES 

  • Build and design flood-resilient watersheds through maintaining soil cover and vegetation, removing unnecessary impervious surfaces (i.e., concrete, buildings), and allowing room for water accumulation through retention ponds;
  • Restore natural watersheds where possible, rather than straight manmade channels with no flow speed reduction;
  • Establish zoning and building codes that restrict development in high-risk, flood-prone areas; and
  • Encourage community residents to obtain flood insurance in high-risk regions through public education and campaigns.

HURRICANES

Hurricanes are one of the most damaging, annually occurring natural disasters that we experience in the US. Some hurricanes, like hurricane Katrina (2005), Harvey (2017), Maria (2017), and Michael (2018), caused long-lasting social and economic impacts on affected communities.

THE CORRELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Hurricanes result from low pressure zones created by warm seas. The low pressure zone draws air to it with enough force to rotate winds around the core up to 185 miles per hour. Climate change has resulted in warming seas and therefore a greater frequency and intensification of low-pressure zones, tropical storms, and hurricanes. Additionally, rising sea levels from climate change expand flooding zones impacted by water surges during a hurricane.

HURRICANE RESILIENCE TIPS FOR COMMUNITIES 

  • Develop grassroots public engagement and education campaigns to provide hurricane preparation information to rural, impoverished, and underserved populations most impacted by hurricanes;
  • Complete needed infrastructure updates proactively, especially infrastructure designed to contain water or protect community assets (i.e., levees, dams, water treatment structures);
  • Establish zoning and building codes that restrict development in high-risk flood prone areas and require hurricane-informed construction methods; and
  • Restore and protect natural hurricane and flooding buffers like wetlands and marshes.

HOW HAGERTY CAN HELP

At Hagerty we have the expertise, passion, and commitment to assist your community with resilience-building efforts. From supporting pre- and post-disaster recovery planning efforts to hazard mitigation planning projects and navigating funding streams and developing project applications, we are here to help.

Please reach out to April Geruso, Hagerty’s Director of Resilience, to discuss any potential support that Hagerty can provide.

Loren Switzer is an Associate with Hagerty Consulting’s Preparedness Division. Loren supports several public and private sector pre- and post-disaster planning and recovery projects. Loren earned her Master of Public Administration (MPA) from the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs and focused on environmental studies throughout her undergraduate education.

Prepare for Disasters — Building Community Resilience Through Planning, Mitigation, and Insurance

Building community resilience requires comprehensive emergency management, from preparedness to mitigation, response, and recovery. Like Rome, community resilience cannot be built in a day. It requires a comprehensive approach that engages the Whole Community. Building resilience is a process that can – and should be – unique to individual communities; however, working to build a community, prepared to overcome and bounce back from disaster events, involves work in four main categories:

  • Intentional Planning for Safe Future Development and Redevelopment
    • Ideally, communities develop in ways that prevent vulnerability by avoiding or building to account for hazards present in a given area.
  • Mitigating Existing Risk
    • When community assets are found to exist within hazardous areas, communities can take action to reduce the risk through structural and non-structural projects.
  • Using Insurance to “Buy Down” Risk
    • In addition to mitigation efforts, insurance can be used to reduce the potential out-of-pocket costs of hazard events.
  • Building Resilience in Post-Disaster Environments
    • Finally, when disasters do strike, the need to rebuild can provide an opportunity to evolve and transform communities to build back in ways that are safer and more resilient.

Intentional Planning for safe future development and redevelopment

Fundamental community planning techniques can support reaching resilience, minimizing future risk through intentional land use planning, building requirements, and zoning ordinances. Additionally, communities do not have to fund their resilience alone, it is important to capitalize on all available federal funding to support community goals.

Pre-disaster recovery planning efforts are vital to guiding communities through the process of disaster recovery. Every disaster scenario is unique, but there tend to be consistent challenges, competing pressures, and common organizational and policy issues that arise in disaster recovery environments. By implementing strategic planning for operations, organization, and policy needs that may arise in a post-disaster environment during “blue skies,” communities set the stage for efficient and effective recovery efforts, regardless of the specific nature of the disaster.

Even after disaster strikes, strategic planning for recovery is vital leveraging limited and time-sensitive opportunities to bounce back and strengthen community resilience. Recovery action and redevelopment plans are the typical tools utilized to support developing a strategy for promoting effective recovery. Strategic planning also allows for communities to recognize problems that existed prior to the disaster and build a more resilient community through the recovery process.

To help communities plan for disaster recovery and enhance their community’s resilience, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted the Community Lifelines concept. Lifelines are critical government and business functions and are essential to human health and safety or economic security. Supported by an integrated network of assets, services, lifelines enable all other aspects of society to function. This framework, originally adapted for emergency response, can be used to help communities think through the pillars of preparedness, recovery, and resilience. Additionally, a key aspect of the concept highlights the importance of private sector integration into community planning and infrastructure resilience. As the private sector owns and operates approximately 85 percent of the nation’s critical infrastructure, public-private partnerships are key to truly reducing disaster risk.

Mitigating Existing Risk

You may have heard that “every dollar spent on mitigation saves an average of four dollars (in losses avoided).”This figure comes from an independent study published in 2005 by the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council, and was cited for more than a decade. In 2017, Pew Charitable Trusts published findings from another independent study of mitigation actions nationwide, which indicated that the 4-to-1 ratio was in fact under-estimating the value of mitigation. Looking at mitigation activities funded through federal funding programs across all hazards, Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that the true ratio is closer to 6-to-1.

Pew Charitable Trusts Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report

FEMA’s new Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program represents an important change to the mitigation landscape. Funding for the program is tied directly to disaster-related damages, with approximately $500 million available in 2020. The BRIC evaluation criteria prioritizes projects that increase the resilience of interconnected infrastructure and system-wide improvements, making major mitigation projects more feasible than ever before.

A notable aspect of the BRIC program is the annual allocation of $600,000, per eligible applicant, for Capability and Capacity Building (C&CB) projects. This set-aside funding provides an avenue for funding efforts to enhance mitigation expertise and knowledge at the state and local level. For example, C&CB projects can include evaluating and increasing building codes, establishing partnerships, scoping projects, or conducting mitigation planning or planning-related activities.

USING INSURANCE TO “BUY DOWN” Risk

Commonly, risk cannot be fully reduced through planning and mitigative action. Buying down the remaining risk through hazard insurance can be an effective way to lessen the potential financial burdens of disasters. Insurance is the only option that immediately offers risk reduction benefits, which makes it uniquely valuable and an attractive option for homeowners, renters, business owners, and local governments.

  • Homeowners and renters benefit greatly from the purchase of various types of hazard insurance since it is often not included in a standard homeowner’s policy. If you live where it rains, then your house can flood. For those who live outside of designated flood zones, flood insurance is often very affordable. Homes outside the flood zone may benefit particularly from buying down their risk since these are areas often have more lenient building and development requirements and enforcement.
  • Business owners can mitigate against business interruption by purchasing insurance coverage to reimburse profits lost from service interruption. Business owners may also choose to purchase endorsements on a standard policy to provide additional coverage of unforeseen
  • Local and state governments can purchase hazard insurance to fully cover future damages sustained by public buildings.

Post-Disaster Resilience-Building

Disasters force communities to see the risk(s) hazards pose to them –setting the stage for a concentrated risk reduction and investments in resilience. Communities see aspects of their communities and life devastated, and thereby become more motivated to invest in protective measures as communities recover. Moreover, federal recovery programs, such as the FEMA Public Assistance (PA) program and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the United States (US) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program, provide funding for communities to not just build back, but build back better. This has inspired communities to transform in the wake of a disaster to reduce risk, better meet community needs, and increase equity.

Recovery, however, can be extremely complex. In the aftermath of a disaster event, there are numerous competing pressures on politicians and local government leadership that can hinder decision-making.

Assigning roles and responsibilities to individuals to manage the recovery of a community can be extremely important in effectively recovering from even the smallest disasters. Additionally, while federal programs provide well needed financial support, they also have strict requirements which can be difficult to understand and meet, particularly in the chaos of response and recovery. No matter how much funding is available, however, recovery also requires prioritization of funding and effort which requires management of community expectations.

Reaching Resilience Is a Marathon, not a sprint

Building resilience requires a comprehensive approach, from the individual or homeowner level on up to the government and community scale. It must be iterative, flexible, and aligned with the financial, political, and other realities of the area. Efforts will not be successful overnight. However, by taking a multi-pronged and strategic approach, communities can plan for and build a more resilient future.

HOW HAGERTY CAN HELP

At Hagerty we have the expertise, passion, and commitment to assist your community with resilience-building efforts. From supporting pre- and post-disaster recovery planning efforts to hazard mitigation planning projects and navigating funding streams and developing project applications, we’re here to help.

Please reach out to April Geruso, Hagerty’s Director of Resilience, to walk through discuss any potential support that Hagerty can provide.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Michelle Bohrson is a Managing Associate with Hagerty Consulting’s Preparedness Division. Michelle primarily supports pre- and post-disaster recovery planning and hazard mitigation planning projects. Michelle earned her Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) from the University of Michigan and is based out of the Austin, TX office.

Michael Levkowitz is a Managing Associate with Hagerty Consulting’s Preparedness Division with strategic expertise in mitigation planning and funding. Michael has served in a variety of roles supporting local, state, tribal, and federal agencies with hazard mitigation and long-term recovery planning, emergency preparedness, and risk communication. Prior to joining Hagerty, Michael served as the Mitigation Strategist for Washington State Emergency Management Division. He earned his Master of Public Administration (MPA) from the University of Washington.

Building a Pipeline of Shovel-Ready Mitigation Projects: BRIC’s Focus on Capability and Capacity Building

Disasters cause substantial damage and disrupt socioeconomic activities in ways that we cannot fully measure. It is difficult to predict when disaster will strike your community next, but it is possible to prepare for it. To successfully enable large-scale infrastructure and mitigation projects, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) new Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, required a mechanism to create a steady pipeline of eligible, shovel-ready projects. Capability and Capacity Building (C&CB) – a new project type eligible for funding under FEMA’s BRIC program— does just that.

According to FEMA, the BRIC program seeks to fund effective and innovative projects that will reduce risk, increase resilience, and serve as a catalyst to encourage the whole community investments in mitigation. To support this goal, BRIC sets $600,000 in C&CB funding aside – per eligible applicant – to enhance mitigation expertise, knowledge, and practice at the state and local level. Eligible expenditures can include building code activities, partnerships, project scoping, mitigation planning, and planning-related activities. This funding is designed to result in a resource, strategy, or mitigation product that will ultimately reduce or eliminate risk and damage from natural hazards.

In the recent BRIC Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), FEMA offers a broad definition of C&CB project eligibility. This will enable greater flexibility for states and local communities as they look to fund the development of mitigation solutions under the BRIC program as well as other federal mitigation programs, such as FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and HMGP Post Fire. Given that BRIC is expected to be a significantly larger grant program than PDM; C&CB funding provides the necessary seed funding to jump start development of future projects and it appears FEMA is willing to provide the space for communities to appropriately identify their needs and do so.

UnSplash: Scott Graham

Additionally, when endeavoring on a new mitigation or infrastructure project, public awareness is key to highlighting the co-benefits of the project, such as environmental and economic impacts. Therefore, FEMA allows for up to 10 percent of a C&CB activity or mitigation project to be used for public awareness and education, such as: brochures, workshops, and videos.

C&CB projects will not require a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). Generally, projects will be subject to a 75 percent federal, 25 percent state and local cost share; however, impoverished communities may be eligible for an increased federal cost share of up to 90 percent. While the $600,000 per applicant maximum award may not provide all the funding required to analyze, coordinate, design, and engineer a jurisdiction’s large infrastructure project, it is the first step in the process of building greater capacity to do so.

The BRIC application period opens on September 30, 2020 and closes on January 29, 2021; however, BRIC project applications will take a significant amount of time and resources to complete. We encourage potential applicants and sub-applicants to begin their planning efforts as soon as possible.

Hagerty is here to help. While the cost share for this program is 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal, FEMA will provide 100 percent federal funding for management costs associated with the administration of a BRIC-awarded mitigation measure or C&CB project. Therefore, our professionals can help at little-to-no additional cost.

Hagerty’s Mitigation Team are experts in navigating the pre- and post-disaster funding world. We are available to talk about your recovery needs, including how to access all funding available through federal grant programs. To learn more, contact us.

___________________________________________________________________________

Scott Baldwin is a Senior Mitigation Manager at Hagerty Consulting and a subject matter expert in natural hazard mitigation in both the pre and post disaster recovery environments.  With over 10 years of experience in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Public Assistance (PA) programs, Scott has worked closely with states and communities in Colorado and California to identify, develop, and implement mitigation and recovery solutions tailored to meet their needs.

FEMA’s BRIC Program: A Timely Lifeline

Yesterday, as the East Coast was pummeled by strong winds and numerous tornadoes from Tropical Storm Isaias, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) unveiled the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for its new mitigation program, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC). Amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Tropical Storm Isaias caused millions to lose power – there were nearly 1.4 million power outages in New Jersey alone – and power restoration is anticipated to take several days. The current outages are about half of the more than 2.7 million customers who lost power at the height of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 – the largest outage in the state’s history. Events like this often cause communities nationwide to contemplate the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters and what solutions are available to help us become a more resilient nation; BRIC is one of them.

BRIC’s New Focus

Disasters cause substantial damage and disrupt socioeconomic activities in ways that we cannot fully measure. Additionally, climate variability is causing more frequent and powerful storms that are responsible for unprecedented devastation and costly disaster recovery operations. BRIC aims to categorically shift the current federal focus away from reactive disaster spending towards research-supported, proactive investment in community resilience. BRIC, which replaces FEMA’s legacy Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, supports states, local communities, tribes, and territories to become more resilient through capability and capacity building and development of large-scale hazard mitigation projects designed to break the repetitive cycle of damage and loss.

The BRIC program will support community resilience in four tangible ways:

  1. Provide larger monetary investment in pre-disaster mitigation to reduce future disaster risk. Last year, FEMA’s PDM program allocated $250 million for mitigation and resiliency activities. That level of investment was historic in its own right, as it was the highest level of funding awarded in the history of the legacy PDM program; however, BRIC’s first-year funding doubled that investment, making $500 million available to eligible state, tribal, and territorial applicants.
  2. Place a greater emphasis on capability and capacity building to promote a culture of preparedness. BRIC sets $600,000 in funding aside – per eligible applicant – to enhance mitigation expertise, knowledge, and practice at the state and local level. Eligible expenditures can include building code activities, partnerships, project scoping, mitigation planning, and planning-related activities. This funding is designed to result in a resource, strategy, or mitigation product that will ultimately reduce or eliminate risk and damage from natural hazards.
  3. Increase project caps to allow for larger-scale infrastructure projects. BRIC changes the national competition cap for mitigation projects, which increased from $10 million to $50 million per project. This increased project cap allows for larger-scale projects that invest in public infrastructure and harden community lifelines. These projects will undergo additional programmatic review, which will evaluate not only technical merit but qualitative criteria such as the population impacted, outreach activities, future conditions, and resiliency effectiveness.
  4. Expressed commitment to nature-based solutions that promote sustainability. BRIC encourages communities to explore nature-based solutions that can serve as eligible project types and mitigate hazards such as riverine flooding, urban drainage flooding, coastal flooding and storm surge, landslides, and drought. Unique, nature-based solutions can provide short- and long-term environmental, economic, and social advantages that improve a community’s quality of life and make it more attractive to new residents and businesses. Potential project types include land conservation, greenways, wetland restoration, stormwater parks, floodplain restoration, rain gardens, and more.

FEMA BRIC and Nature-Based Solutions Presentation: Source

Next Steps

In preparation for the application period opening, FEMA will host a series of webinars to further discuss the grant program details, the agency’s funding priorities, common application pitfalls, and the new system for grant submission (FEMA GO). More information on the upcoming webinar dates and times can be found here. Registration information will be available soon.

The BRIC application period opens on September 30, 2020 and closes on January 29, 2021; however, BRIC project applications will take a significant amount of time and resources to complete. We encourage potential applicants and sub-applicants to begin their planning efforts as soon as possible.

Hagerty is here to help. While the cost share for this program is 75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal, FEMA will provide 100 percent federal funding for management costs associated with the administration of a BRIC-awarded mitigation measure or project. Therefore, our professionals can help at little-to-no additional cost.

Hagerty’s Mitigation Team are experts in navigating the pre- and post-disaster funding world. We are available to talk about your recovery needs, including how to access all funding available through federal grant programs. To learn more, contact us.

___________________________________________________________________________

Amelia Muccio is the Director of Mitigation at Hagerty Consulting and a subject matter expert in disaster recovery. With over 15 years of experience in public health, disaster preparedness, mitigation, and financial recovery, Amelia has helped clients obtain $5 billion in federal funds after major disasters, including Hurricane Sandy, the California Wildfires, and Hurricane Harvey.

Katie Grasty is the Deputy Director of Mitigation for Hagerty Consulting. Katie has over 10 years of experience with federal grant management with FEMA and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Prior to Hagerty, Katie was the senior program lead for Hazard Mitigation with FEMA Region 9, where she managed over $2 billion in federal funds for flood, fire, and earthquake risk reduction projects.

Policy Analysis: Implementing BRIC in a COVID-19 World

As the response to COVID-19 continues to evolve, we are facing an unprecedented challenge nationwide. There are 56 active Presidential Disaster Declarations (all 50 states, five territories, and Washington DC) related specifically to the pandemic. Almost 1.2 million Americans are known to be infected and 68,000 have died (though the actual total numbers could be drastically higher). In some parts of the country, our healthcare system is on the brink of being overwhelmed, as hospitals report critical equipment shortages and face challenges balancing other medical care with COVID-19 treatment needs. Meanwhile, healthcare workers nationwide are suffering widespread layoffs, pay cuts, and furloughs as non-emergency and elective healthcare visits have been delayed or canceled. Without a viable vaccine or herd immunity, the country may be socially distancing to varying degrees for the better part of the next two years.

While heavily entrenched in organizing and implementing the nation’s response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is being pressed by elected officials to allow for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding to be used for the COVID-19 Disaster Declarations. Using HMGP funding in this way would mark a paradigm shift – opening up funding beyond the program’s typical historic focus of floods, tornadoes, and earthquakes.

Though it may seem off-topic to consider long-term resilience in an immediate time of crisis, it is prudent to utilize a disaster event – no matter the hazard – as an opportunity to build back in ways that reduce future risk. Proactive investments to rehabilitate impacted communities while simultaneously mitigating risk increase the activities’ return on investment not only for natural hazards, but that which we face today. While the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Program typically funds flood, tornado, wildfire, and earthquake project types, the current pandemic response underscores the mitigation funding opportunities for hardening or retrofitting of critical facilities, infrastructure, or other community assets vital to responding effectively to COVID-19 or similar infectious disease outbreaks.

In addition to these ongoing considerations related to HMGP and COVID-19, on April 10, 2020, FEMA released its draft policy for the new Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) policy for public comment. The policy describes the new program which would supersede the existing Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program as a major funding opportunity focused on investing in and strengthening the nation’s mitigation capabilities in order to protect communities and infrastructure. FEMA is accepting comments during a formal comment period ending on May 11, 2020.

The new grant program’s funding will be connected directly to expenditures made under Presidential Disaster Declarations. Given the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and response, the annual funding for BRIC in 2021 could reach unprecedented levels. Communities seeking to leverage those funds can lean in by identifying and developing cost-effective and conceptually eligible projects to submit for funding through BRIC.

Annual Funding Amount

  • In addition to enacting various modifications to the program design and requirements, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) authorizes FEMA to set aside up to six percent of total estimated disaster expenses associated with each Presidential Disaster Declaration to fund the BRIC Program. These funds will go into the National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund (NPIPDM), with the annual contributions fluctuating based on the number and cost of disasters in the prior year. Then, on an annual basis, FEMA will assess the total amount available in the fund and determine the total amount available through BRIC each year.
  • FEMA estimates that the annual contributions to the NPIPDM will be between $300-$500 million. This represents a significant increase in both projected amount available annually and the stability of annual award amounts. In contrast, PDM Program annual funding was determined by Congressional appropriations.

Notable Aspects of the Proposed Policy

  • There is no explicit mention of Advanced Assistance projects in the draft policy, which have been used in recent years to support the development of technically feasible, eligible, and cost-effective projects through PDM and HMGP. However, the draft policy does identify “Capability- and Capacity-Building Activities” as an eligible use of assistance. The functional design of this eligible use of assistance is ambiguous, but it may – in part – support a similar project pipeline for communities. Seed funding to develop future projects is critical to the success and longevity of BRIC.
  • The draft policy states that all projects planned to address structures in the Special Flood Hazard Area are contingent upon the jurisdiction participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the property owner obtaining (if not already possessed) and maintaining flood insurance for the life of the structure. This requirement, which was notably not part of the PDM Program, would preclude mitigation projects from eligibility, regardless of the cost-benefit of the individual projects.
  • The draft policy includes (non-financial) technical assistance “to promote the program, identify potential projects, develop and review applications and mitigation plans, and provide training on grants management.” The specific nature of this technical assistance (availability, scope, request process, etc.) is not yet clear. Providing communities with clear guidance on strong resilient planning opportunities, such as developing, adopting, and implementing more modern or more resilient building code or enacting flood damage prevention ordinances, helps communities best integrate traditional planning with resilience-building.
  • Applicants may request Periods of Performance (POP) beyond 36 months at the time of application for “highly complex projects.” According to the draft policy, specific criteria for receiving approval for an extent POP will be detailed with other program implementation materials. This timeline represents increased flexibility and can help increase the viability of some larger or more interconnected projects.

How Hagerty Can Help

At Hagerty we have the expertise, passion, and commitment to assist you with FEMA hazard mitigation funding streams. Hagerty can assist communities to take advantage of the BRIC Program and help communities to further develop their projects into BRIC applications. Please reach out to Amelia Muccio to walk through the process and any mitigation projects that you might be considering. Please find more information about the BRIC funding in Hagerty’s overview below:

April Geruso is the Director of Resilience at Hagerty Consulting and a subject matter expert in preparedness, pre-disaster recovery planning, cost recovery, and community resilience. With nearly 15 years of experience in emergency management, April has led long-term recovery and resilience activities for disasters totaling $7.5 billion in damages, including recovery from the 2018 wildfires and hurricanes, and 2019 catastrophic flooding. She has also led pre-disaster recovery planning for multiple state and local governments, established protocols for cost recovery activities in New York City post-Hurricane Sandy, and consulted for federal planning efforts as a recovery expert. Prior to joining Hagerty, April served as the Deputy Director of Planning for the City of Philadelphia’s Office of Emergency Management, where she coordinated oversight and implementation of all City of Philadelphia emergency plans.

Michael Levkowitz is a Managing Consultant with Hagerty Consulting’s Preparedness Division with strategic expertise in mitigation planning and funding. Michael has served in a variety of roles supporting local, state, tribal, and federal agencies with hazard mitigation and long-term recovery planning, emergency preparedness, and risk communication. Following the 2019 disasters in Nebraska, Michael began supporting long-term recovery planning and the administration of HMGP funds in the state. Prior to joining Hagerty, Michael served as the Mitigation Strategist for Washington State Emergency Management Division, where he led the state’s effort to maintain and implement its Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan and support local jurisdictions and tribal communities in developing and adopting local and tribal hazard mitigation plans.

You can review our overview of BRIC Funding at:

You can review our Previous Blog Post at:

Opportunity to Shape New DRRA Policy on FEMA Building Codes Enforcement

 

Unsplash: Jens Behrmann

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has released the draft Recovery Policy on Building Code and Floodplain Management Administration and Enforcement, a document that, according to FEMA, “defines the framework and requirements for consistent and appropriate implementation [of Section 1206 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA)] through the PA Program.” This new policy may offer significant opportunities for state and local governments to improve resilience by providing federal funding for post-disaster code enforcement and code administration activities. FEMA has released the draft document for a 45-day public comment period, accepting comments until Friday, March 6, 2020.

For background, Congress passed the DRRA of 2018 on October 5, 2018 to change how the federal government supports disaster preparedness, response, and recovery and to work towards a more resilient future. The DRRA focuses on how to better incentivize and fund disaster resilience. This particular component of the DRRA, Section 1206, specifically amends sections 402 and 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) to authorize FEMA to provide assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments for building code and floodplain management ordinance administration and enforcement activities.

Overall, the draft policy is rather straightforward: FEMA can now pay for certain post-disaster code enforcement and administration activities within 180 days of the disaster declaration date. Unfortunately, 180 days is typically not long enough for most communities to adopt new and/or enforce codes in recovery projects. However, this timebound requirement comes from the DRRA, so FEMA cannot extend it. Eligible activities include but are not limited to: substantial damage inspections, permitting, and hiring new staff to implement adopted codes. Eligible costs will generally be obligated via a Category G permanent work project worksheet (PW) and will be funded at the permanent work cost-share applicable to the disaster. This opt-in policy will be retroactive to disasters declared on or after August 1, 2017.

The Hagerty Consulting, Inc. (Hagerty) Team is taking this opportunity to provide our feedback to FEMA to help shape the final policy. After review of the draft policy, our Team’s key takeaways include:

What We Like About the Draft Policy

  • Even if communities adopt updated codes after a disaster, FEMA can fund enforcement and administrative activities.[1] Still, it is unlikely that communities will be able to develop and adopt code updates within 180 days of a disaster.
  • Eligible activities extend beyond public facilities to include private and residential structures. This broad scope allows FEMA to support local building departments across the spectrum of post-disaster code enforcement and administration.

What We Think FEMA Should Revise in the New Policy

  • While the draft policy outlines dozens of eligible activities, it restricts FEMA funding to only overtime costs for existing, budgeted employees – the same restriction as Emergency Work under Public Assistance (PA). This part significantly undermines the benefit of the new draft policy. Further, it is inconsistent with FEMA’s position that eligible enforcement and administration activities under this policy are considered permanent work, to be captured on Category G PWs.  DRRA Section 1206 does not appear to strictly limit eligibility of budgeted employees. As such, FEMA should expand eligibility for straight and overtime regardless of local employee status.
    • Note: if communities hire new employees and/or contract out, all costs are eligible. This is in contrast to the limits for budgeted employees described above.
  • The draft policy is retroactive to disasters declared on or after August 1, 2017; however, the mechanism by which communities must opt in is needlessly time limited. FEMA should revise the opt-in requirements and proactively socialize this expanded assistance to ensure that all interested communities are aware of and can opt in if desired.

The Hagerty Team strongly encourages all past, current, and future FEMA PA recipients and sub-recipients to consider reviewing the draft of the Section 1206 policy and submitting comments to FEMA. Let your voices or concerns be heard before this new policy document is finalized and published! If you would like to submit comments to FEMA, you must do so by March 6, 2020 using this comment matrix and submitting to FEMA-Recovery-PA-Policy@fema.dhs.gov.

[1] This does not change the criteria for funding permanent work upgrades only for codes in effect at the time of the disaster pursuant to 44 CFR §206.226(d), or the recently published interim policy on Section 1235(b) on the DRRA. Check back with Disaster Discourse for a future post discussing Section 1235(b) Consensus-Based Codes, Specifications, and Standards.

Ari Renoni is a Deputy Director of Recovery Programs with Hagerty. He supports clients in New York, California, Puerto Rico, Florida, and elsewhere. Prior to Hagerty, Ari worked for the United Nations (UN) World Food Programme (WFP), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Ministry of Education in Namibia, and for the Center for Policy Research at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. He lives in upstate NY with his wife and two children.

BRIC by BRIC – FEMA Invests in Pre-Disaster Mitigation

It’s been less than a year since FEMA released the 2018 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for pre-disaster mitigation (PDM). The 2018 PDM appropriation was significantly more, $135.2M higher, than the previous year. FEMA has further reinforced their commitment to pre-disaster mitigation by announcing the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), which will be funded through the Disaster Relief Fund, as a six percent set aside from estimated disaster grant expenditures.

The new federal disaster mitigation program, included in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA), will focus on reducing the nation’s risk by investing grant funding in public infrastructure projects before a disaster impacts the area. In order to increase our resilience, FEMA is engaging public and private partners’ feedback in the development and implementation of the program. FEMA is also offering four webinars that highlight key topics in the development of the BRIC.

“BRIC by BRIC”, FEMA steadily and continuously creates more significant mitigation investment opportunities, building a more resilient nation.

We at Hagerty have the expertise and commitment to assist you with FEMA hazard mitigation funding streams. Hagerty can assist communities to take advantage of the BRIC program and help communities to further develop their projects into BRIC applications. Feel free to reach out to me to walk through the process and any mitigation projects that you might be considering. Please find more information about the BRIC funding in Hagerty’s overview below:

To Learn More about BRIC, FEMA is holding the following webinars in June (click here for full webinar details):
  • Webinar 1: Infrastructure Mitigation Projects And Community Lifelines: Thursday June 6 at 2:00 pm EST
  • Webinar 2: Hazard Mitigation Planning, Grant Application And Evaluation, And Risk Based Funding: Thursday, June 13 at 2:00 pm EST
  • Webinar 3: Funding & Resource Management And Benefit-Cost Analysis: Thursday, June 20 at 2:00 pm EST
  • Webinar 4: Building Codes And Enforcement And Capacity And Capability: Tuesday, June 25 at 2:00 pm EST

FEMA Infographic Credit: FEMA Mitigation Minute on June 5, 2019

Amelia Muccio is the Director of Mitigation for Hagerty Consulting. Amelia is an emergency management and public health professional with over 10 years of experience. She serves as the mitigation lead for many of Hagerty’s clients and has extensive expertise and experience navigating numerous federal mitigation programs. Amelia graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Public Health from Rutgers College and a Masters in Public Administration from New York University. Learn more about Hagerty’s mitigation expertise and support services here.