FEMA and FHWA Emergency Relief Funds Reimbursements to State Departments of Transportation (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

FEMA AND FHWA EMERGENCY RELIEF FUNDS REIMBURSEMENTS TO STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION Disasters are costly to state departments of transportation (DOTs), which are challenged with expanding roles and responsibilities and increasing public expectations. An important aspect of recovery from any event is cost recovery, and reimbursement processes “play an important role in establishing and maintaining the readiness of resources and should be in place to ensure that resource providers are reimbursed in a timely manner” (National Incident Management System 2008, p. 39). This synthesis focuses on state DOT experiences and practices related to the federal disaster reimbursement programs: FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) and the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA). Severe weather events can be extremely costly, and with the continuing threat of terrorism, technological hazards, and accidents, state DOTs need efficient and effective ways to manage the processes required for reimbursement programs to obtain their eligible reimbursement amounts. However, the processes and required procedures can be difficult to navigate. The intention of the FHWA ER and FEMA PA programs is to supplement state and local resources to address the significant expenses caused by extraordinary conditions such as natural disasters. Neither program is intended to reimburse state DOTs fully. The FEMA PA program emanates from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which authorizes federal assistance to be provided to local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments and certain nonprofit organizations. The FEMA PA program is not an individual assistance program. Effective practices were identified through an information review, a screening survey to state DOT members of the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management (SCOTSEM), follow-up telephone calls, and case studies. Thirty- five state DOTs responded to the screening survey. The information review included inter- views and communications with panel members, representatives of FHWA and FEMA, two state emergency management agencies (EMAs), and American Public Works Association (APWA); and a literature review of relevant legislation, FEMA PA and FHWA ER guidance, Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports, and other relevant information. This process yielded information about the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs along with ongoing and planned changes. Because of continuing efforts to improve the programs, additional changes that have not been identified in this synthesis are expected. Case study interviews were performed with the following state DOTs: • California—Caltrans • Florida—FDOT • Iowa—IDOT • Louisiana—DOTD SUMMARY

2 • Missouri—MoDOT • New York State—NYSDOT • Tennessee—TDOT • Texas—TxDOT • Wisconsin—WisDOT • Vermont—VTrans Interviews were also performed with the state EMAs for Arizona and California. State DOTs, in general, have extensive knowledge of FHWA and federal aid processes and procedures. They have developed ongoing professional relationships with their FHWA Division Office representatives and understand their Division Office requirements. State DOTs tend to have less familiarity and knowledge of FEMA processes, procedures, and requirements. The state DOTs that coordinated more closely with their FEMA representatives had better experiences in terms of the reimbursement process. State DOTs stated that additional training on both programs and funds to provide more training and support to local public agencies (LPAs) would be desirable. State DOTs also noted that they have expended time and resources to assist LPAs because they require sub- stantial assistance on both the FEMA and FHWA programs and look to their state DOTs for leadership and assistance. State DOT experiences of both programs were influenced by specific program components, implementation, and administration methods, as determined by state and local laws, regulations, and guidance. The changes being made to the programs through the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the 2013 National Review of the Emergency Relief Program, and increased coordination between FHWA and FEMA are expected to result in improvements in the FHWA ER and FEMA PA programs and consequently better experiences for state DOTs. Nonetheless, these changes can pose a challenge to state DOTs during the adjustment period. Effective practices in the state DOT’s business and management functions facilitate the reimbursement process for state DOTs. These functions include accounting and financial management, information management, project management, and procurement. The reimburse- ment process is also facilitated by the alignment of systems, processes, and technologies with the requirements of the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs. Such practices are also part of an effective cost management strategy that keeps agency costs and resource utilization under control and supports agency leadership in its planning, analysis, and resource allocation decisions. A high level of preparedness leads to better outcomes for state DOTs. Useful strategies for state DOT preparedness include establishing effective working relationships with federal, state, and local partners; seeking their input when developing or changing systems and processes; and resolving issues identified in previous disasters. Furthermore, because state DOTs need to meet FHWA ER and FEMA PA program deadlines for emergency work to maximize their eligible reimbursements, measures that streamline emergency work are instrumental in meeting these deadlines. Useful practices in these topics identified during the synthesis study are summarized in Table 1.

3 Useful Practices Reported by Case Study Participants Practices related to policy Creating a formal cost recovery policy Aligning systems, processes, and technologies used in daily operations with FHWA and FEMA requirements Establishing relationships with FHWA and FEMA contacts and other federal, state, and local partners Conducting and implementing After Action Reports to assess and improve reimbursement processes Preparing administrative packets for emergencies Designating reimbursement coordinators (both at the headquarters and district levels) and other key roles before disasters occur Identifying mitigation opportunities to increase resilience against future events Maximizing eligible reimbursement by meeting deadlines for emergency work Refraining from requesting FHWA Emergency Relief funds for permanent work until the agency is ready to begin the work Practices related to accounting/financial management Using unique project codes for disasters Performing internal audits prior to submission Using appropriate management systems Gaining access to the FHWA Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) Creating a uniform invoice system for counties Including all expenses Screening for duplication of FHWA Emergency Relief and FEMA Public Assistance costs; automate where possible Integrating financial, human resources, and payroll systems statewide Preparing a Narrative Cost Allocation Plan to capture FHWA Emergency Relief Indirect Costs Practices related to documentation/information management Systematizing record-keeping and using ICS forms Keeping data in a central location or drive Using electronic signatures Storing data electronically Using appropriate management systems Using software with Optical Character Recognition capabilities Using checklists in FHWA Emergency Relief program guidance documents to determine eligibility Creating electronic versions of the Detailed Damage Inspection Report (DDIR)/Damage Assessment Form (DAF) Automating DDIR/DAF distribution system Combining the Project Worksheet (PW) and Detailed Damage Inspection Report (DDIR) into one form TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF USEFUL PRACTICES REPORTED BY CASE STUDY PARTICIPANT AGENCIES (continued on next page)

4 Practices related to training Conducting disaster assessments Using scenarios from prior disasters Providing training on the FHWA Emergency Relief and FEMA Public Assistance programs to personnel responsible for documentation and reimbursement Providing training to Local Public Agencies on the FHWA Emergency Relief and FEMA Public Assistance programs Providing training to state EMA personnel on the FHWA Emergency Relief program (because they may be less familiar with this program) Training state DOT personnel for integration into the state EMA as project officers and project coordinators on FEMA Public Assistance–eligible projects Practices related to site assessment Designating assessment teams before disasters occur Establishing repair or route prioritization methods before disasters occur Distributing information packets to assessment teams Using weather information services or systems Implementing bridge/highway/pavement management systems Using geospatial data and lidar Mapping historic data to show repetitive losses Purchasing a specially equipped vehicle that records damages or predisaster conditions Forming a partnership with the Civil Air Patrol or similar organizations for aerial imagery services Developing assessment teams able to be self-sustaining for several days Using web-based maps to determine whether a road is Federal-aid Inspecting vehicles and equipment before mobilization Practices related to asset management Using Asset Management systems with standardized site codes to track and document predisaster conditions of DOT facilities Using bridge monitoring systems to predict and assess impacts of disasters on bridges Equipping snowplows and other vehicles with GPS facilitates emergency response/recovery and tracking and documenting labor and equipment usage Practices related to appeals Contacting the FHWA Division Office to discuss the case directly Citing relevant laws and regulations Citing prior decisions (precedents) Practices related to contracting Standardizing payments to contractors Designating one point of contact for plans and blueprints Implementing a contractor database Using Construction Management system or software Securing emergency waivers (for example, on environmental and historical preservation approvals) and establishing a blanket approval process for emergency work Selecting/prequalifying contractors for emergency work who are familiar with the process and documentation required for successful reimbursement TABLE 1 (continued)