Section 406 hazard mitigation, explained with examples

FEMA 406 hazard mitigation is written into every permanent work project McGee Disaster Consulting Group scopes for an applicant, so the question below is asked on your behalf. Every permanent work project carries a question that too often goes unasked: what would keep this from happening again? Section 406 of the Stafford Act lets FEMA fund cost-effective hazard mitigation as part of repairing a damaged facility. The money sits inside the same project, at the same cost share. The catch is timing. Under FEMA policy, mitigation is considered during project formulation, so a measure that is not proposed while the project is being written is unlikely to be funded later.

406 and 404 are different tools

Passing the cost-effectiveness test

The 15 percent test is the simplest: total the eligible repair cost for the facility, before any insurance reduction, and if the mitigation measure costs no more than 15 percent of that figure, the policy guide treats it as cost-effective without further analysis. The Appendix J test is the one most applicants should reach for next. The policy guide lists measures FEMA considers cost-effective up to 100 percent of the eligible repair cost, for which no benefit-cost analysis is required. Only when a measure meets neither test does the project need a BCA, and FEMA hazard mitigation staff may assist in developing one.

Appendix J covers more ground than most applicants expect. Examples include:

• Drainage: replacing a washed-out culvert with a larger one or multiple pipes; adding headwalls, wingwalls and energy dissipators; armoring inlets and outlets with riprap or gabions.
• Roads and bridges: geotextile drainage blankets under the pavement section; armoring shoulders exposed to overflow from adjacent water courses.
• Buildings: elevating, wet floodproofing or dry floodproofing; anchoring small buildings against uplift; stronger roof coverings and edge flashing; impact-resistant doors and windows; securing rooftop equipment through a continuous load path.
• Mechanical and electrical systems: elevating or floodproofing equipment; transfer switches, camlocks and quick connects for backup power; seismic bracing of piping, conduit and ductwork.
• Water, wastewater and power: pipe joint restraints and isolation valves; submersible pumps and motors; elevated sewer access covers; looped distribution to critical facilities; surge suppressors and lightning arrestors.
• Site work: anchoring storage tanks with self-initiating shut-offs; replacing impervious pavement with permeable alternatives.

An illustration, with round numbers: a culvert with an eligible repair cost of $80,000 is replaced with a larger structure and new headwalls for an additional $28,000. That is 35 percent of the repair cost, so it fails the 15 percent test, but culvert upsizing and headwalls are Appendix J measures and $28,000 is below 100 percent of the repair cost, so under the policy guide the measure is treated as cost-effective without a BCA.

How to propose FEMA 406 hazard mitigation, and when

1. Ask the question at every site inspection. Mitigation can be recommended by the applicant, the recipient or FEMA, and you may ask FEMA’s hazard mitigation staff to help identify and develop measures.
2. Write the hazard mitigation proposal with the project. Describe the measure, how it protects the damaged portion of the facility, the cost estimate, and which cost-effectiveness test it meets.
3. Clear the compliance items. Mitigation must meet environmental and historic preservation requirements and applicable codes, which can differ from your usual construction checklist.
4. Build what was approved. Under the policy guide, approved mitigation that is not completed is subject to deobligation at closeout.

The policy guide describes two timing situations for applicants who had to move quickly. If a facility was repaired and mitigation was implemented afterward on the completed repair, the mitigation may still be eligible, though costs the later mitigation duplicates are not. If mitigation was built after the incident but before FEMA could evaluate it, the guide provides that it may still be funded if FEMA determines it is cost-effective and compliant with environmental and historic preservation requirements.

How McGee Disaster Consulting Group helps

Our team identifies FEMA 406 hazard mitigation opportunities while each permanent work project is scoped. McGee Disaster Consulting Group brings together people who have drafted hazard mitigation proposals for applicants and people who have reviewed them for FEMA, and both know what a complete proposal contains. The practice is simple: every permanent work site inspection includes a mitigation question, Appendix J is checked first because a listed measure does not require a BCA, and the proposal is drafted with the project rather than after obligation. That is the service behind our 406 Mitigation page.