Risk Informed Funding

Topic 5: Risk Informed Funding

FEMA is exploring the various options for developing a risk informed methodology for grant funding. How should FEMA prioritize funding for BRIC, both for allocation to states, territories, and tribes on the national level, as well as, on the project level through competitive priorities?

FEMA seeks your opinions on:

  • What sources of risk data does your community use for prioritizing grant funding for disaster mitigation activities
  • What limitations and risks you see in using risk data to make funding award decisions to states, territories, and tribes versus a nationwide competitive program comparing project applications
  • How can the risk data that is available in your community be improved to better inform actions that can be taken to improve disaster resiliency
(@jaleesa.tate)

Risk Informed Funding

All Data Is Not Created Equally

Many factors are taken into consideration when prioritizing mitigation activities. From a risk data perspective this includes evaluating hazards and vulnerabilities; analyzing historic occurrences and Presidential Major Disaster Declarations; determining social vulnerability; and evaluating the geographical extent of a hazard. At a State level it can often times prove challenging to utilize data as a driving factor in... more »

Voting

-1 votes
0 up votes
1 down votes
Active
(@air)

Risk Informed Funding

Develop and maintain a baseline risk analysis

A baseline risk analysis at national scale and across multiple perils should be performed to identify potential areas for mitigation projects. The analysis can be performed using high resolution exposure data from local jurisdictions and/or from high quality national datasets that are increasingly available. A national analysis would ensure consistent development of KPIs, such as losses avoided and population- or cultural-based... more »

Voting

0 votes
1 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Risk Informed Funding

The Effect of Climate Anomalies on Risk Assessment

Risk informed funding seems a bit myopic and counterproductive in an environment characterized by climate anomalies: this irregularity assumes that all are equally vulnerable to low probability, deleterious impact events in the long term. Basing funding for mitigation on short-term assessments of variable risk will, in the long-term, disadvantage some states over others. If all are equally vulnerable to mothers-of-all-events... more »

Voting

-1 votes
0 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Risk Informed Funding

National Risk Assessment Models Are Not Necessarily Locally Accurate

One of the webinars discussed using the base value of the current $575,000 set aside plus a factor determined from a relevant national risk assessment model to establish the minimum amount of state award. With the understanding that all disasters start and end locally, how can a national risk model be appropriately used to determine local hazard priorities for funding consideration?

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Risk Informed Funding

Recognize whole-community relocation as an eligible cost

Currently, several communities are experiencing environmental hazards that are so severe the only viable mitigation strategy is relocation to a separate, distant site. However, this mitigation strategy is not currently eligible for funding under PDM. Whole-community relocation should be an eligible cost under the BRIC program. Whole-community relocation costs around $160 million for a rural Alaska Native community.

Voting

4 votes
5 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Risk Informed Funding

Allowable Alaska home acquisition and relocation project costs

In our rural communities, relocating a building is far more challenging than lifting it onto a trailer and driving it down an existing road to an existing site and connecting it to utilities. The majority of our rural communities do not have roads or existing developed sites to relocate the building to. For these reasons, it is critical that acquisition and relocation projects fund the construction of the entire relocation... more »

Voting

0 votes
1 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Risk Informed Funding

Incorporate specific, local, statewide data as a scoring criterion when evaluating rural Alaska applicants

Including the magnitude of expected impacts on infrastructure in BRIC scoring would strategically advance mitigation efforts in the Alaskan communities with the greatest risk. Due to the fact that national datasets are not relevant to most of Alaska, we recommend that data sets such as the 2009 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment and the Statewide Threat Assessment (upon completion) be used... more »

Voting

-1 votes
0 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Risk Informed Funding

Do not use national datasets in scoring criteria

National datasets, such as building codes, should not be used in scoring criteria because they largely do not apply to Alaska. For example, none of the six criteria listed on page 18 of the 2018 PDM Notice of Funding Opportunity are relevant to Alaska Native communities. This means that our communities are unlikely to be competitive for that program's Resilient Infrastructure category, which is important because it is... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Risk Informed Funding

We need to focus on Green Infrastructures

We need to focus on resolutions. Using small amount money to get people out of hazard areas, that is large savings for our nation. Set-aside will be generated by this savings for unexpected events and areas. Planning should focus on major hazards, as we said risk driving. For example, shore and PA are flooding states, those we should focus to resolve them. Planning should be Green infrastructures/watershed for large River... more »

Voting

1 vote
6 up votes
5 down votes
Active
(@dhiebert)

Risk Informed Funding

Risk prioritization of local projects should NEVER be done with national datasets

Prioritization by greatest risk and vulnerability should be required by jurisdictions and state; however, states and jurisdictions should be able to demonstrate this with their own analysis and data sets. National-level data is much too coarse and is totally inappropriate to be applied locally to prioritize across jurisdictions. Since hazards also are often spatially discrete, the national data sets will not prioritize... more »

Voting

10 votes
11 up votes
1 down votes
Active