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.

5 additional responsibilities and normal responsibilities during disasters and emergencies can be significant. Therefore, the knowledge of the reimbursement programs and processes is a strategic asset for state DOTs. State DOTs need to efficiently secure reimbursements for which they are eligible. However, state DOTs report that they expend much effort and time in the reimbursement process. Difficulties may arise because the two programs have dif- ferent documentation procedures and forms, eligibility crite- ria, federal match percentages, different appeals procedures, equipment rate, contracting requirements, and fringe benefits rate calculations. State DOTs, in some situations, have to apply for reimbursement to both programs, even if it is for the same event at the same site. Efforts at clarifying the two programs have been made in recent years and are still being made, most recently with the enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act and the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA). Many state DOTs have a better understanding of FHWA requirements and federal aid procedures because they work with their FHWA Division Offices on a regular basis and thus have a better comprehen- sion of the FHWA ER program elements and application pro- cess. Because they have less familiarity with FEMA and the FEMA PA program, more effort is required for state DOTs to achieve a good grasp of the requirements. The goal of this study effort is to improve state DOTs’ knowledge and resources through documentation of existing experiences, knowledge, learning, and practices used by state DOTs to obtain appropriate reimbursements efficiently. This project synthesized the range of practices state DOTs can implement to ease their response effort, secure appropriate reimbursements, and simplify cost identification. FHWA EMERGENCY RELIEF AND FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OVERVIEW 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 purpose of the FHWA ER program has been to “aid States in repairing road facilities which have suffered widespread serious damage resulting from a natural disaster over a wide area or serious damage from a catastrophic failure” Costs related to disasters experienced by states and munici- palities are formidable. In the year 2012, “there were 11 differ- ent weather and climate disaster events with estimated losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. Taken together, these 11 events resulted in over $110 billion in esti- mated damages, which would make it the second-costliest year on record” (The President’s Climate Action Plan 2013, p. 4). Internationally, economic losses in 2012 were largely driven by Hurricane Sandy ($65 billion), a U.S. drought ($35 billion), several severe weather events in the United States (more than $25 billion), earthquakes in Italy ($15.8 billion), and several flood events in China ($14.4 billion) (AON Benfield 2013, p. 5). In addition, Melillo et al. (2014) include the following findings regarding the frequency and severity of severe weather events: • Intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hur- ricanes and Category 4 and 5 hurricanes have increased since the 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall rates are expected to increase. • Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s. • Heat waves have become more frequent and intense, particularly in Western United States. In the Southwest, droughts and heat waves are expected to increase in intensity. • In the last three to five decades, heavy downpours have been increasing, especially in the Midwest and Northeast (pp. 16–17). The number of disaster declarations reached a high of 99 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, compared with 68 in FY 2004 (“Disaster Declarations by Year” 2014). During the period from FY 2004 to FY 2011, more than $90 billion in disaster assistance had been obligated by Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA) for 629 disaster declarations [Federal Disaster Assistance (GAO-12-838) 2012, p. 14]. The focus of this synthesis report is on FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) and FHWA’s Emergency Relief (ER) funds reimbursements to state departments of transportation (DOTs). State DOTs are increasingly being called upon to go beyond their usual roles and responsibilities. For example, for two recent disasters, the New York State DOT (NYSDOT) was directed by an executive order of the governor to assist local public agencies (LPAs) with emergency repairs and debris removal from local roads. The budgetary impact of these chapter one INTRODUCTION

6 [Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 23, § 668.105, “Policy”]. Although state DOTs have been allowed to make repairs to match current design standards, the purpose has been replacement in-kind, not to fix “preexisting, non-disaster related deficiencies” (CFR, Title 23, § 668.105, “Policy”). FHWA is part of the U.S.DOT and was established in 1966. FHWA’s mission is “to improve mobility on our Nation’s high- ways through national leadership, innovation, and program delivery.” The FHWA “supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Nation’s highway system (Federal-Aid Highway Program) and vari- ous federally and tribal-owned lands (Federal Lands Highway Program)” (“About the FHWA” 2012). There are 52 FHWA Division Offices, one in each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; there is also one FHWA Resource Center that provides technical assistance, program support, training, and technology assistance. The FEMA PA program provides assistance to state and local governments and communities to help them respond to and recover from disasters. The scope of the FEMA PA program is broader than that of the FHWA ER program; for instance, the range of eligible facilities and potential applicants is larger. FEMA was established in 1979 by an executive order of President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter to assist communities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural and man-made disasters. In 2003, FEMA became a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA’s mission is “to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards” (“About the Agency” 2014). In addition to its headquarters in Washington, D.C., FEMA has 10 regional offices throughout the United States. FEMA also establishes joint field offices (JFOs) to respond to individual declarations. FEMA and FHWA are the administrators for the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs, respectively, although they may delegate some responsibilities to the state emergency manage- ment agency (EMA) and state DOT. Program Triggers A presidential declaration or governor’s proclamation is required for an event to be eligible for the FHWA ER program. A statewide federal share threshold (currently $700,000) must be met for an event to be eligible for the program (CFR, Title 23, § 668, Subpart A, “Procedures for Federal-Aid High- ways”). Heavy maintenance or routine repair is not eligible for FHWA ER funds. If the total federal share is less than the threshold amount, justification as to why the repair exceeds the scope of heavy maintenance or routine repair should accom- pany the FHWA ER application [CFR, Title 23, § 668.105(j)]. The trigger for the FEMA PA program is a presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [United States Code (U.S.C.), Title 42, §§ 5121-5206]. State- wide and countywide federal share impact indicators based on population are also considered when making a major disaster declaration decision. The regulation in CFR Title 44 § 206.48 (“Factors considered when evaluating a governor’s request for a major disaster declaration”) provides that FEMA will adjust these per capita impact indicators. These indicators are published in the Federal Register. The statewide per capita impact indicator is $1.39 for disasters declared on or after October 1, 2013 (“Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator” 2013). The corresponding county- wide indicator is $3.50 (“Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator” 2013). Per the Stafford Act, Sec- tion 320, Limitation on Use of Sliding Scales (U.S.C., Title 42, § 5163), no geographic area shall be precluded from receiving assistance under this Act solely by virtue of an arithmetic for- mula or sliding scale based on income or population. Legislative Authority The FHWA ER program is authorized by Section 125 (“Emergency Relief”) of U.S. Code Title 23. In the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 668 (“Emergency Relief Program”) of Title 23 pertains to the ER program and pro- vides policy and program guidance for the administration of program funds. Changes to the program were included in the MAP-21 legislation, which went into effect October 1, 2012. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the “Stafford Act” for short), signed into law in 1988, provides the federal government with authority to respond to disasters. The Stafford Act allows FEMA to access the Federal Disaster Relief Fund for the purposes specified in the Act. The Stafford Act amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 [Public Law (PL) 93-288]. In the U.S. Code, the Stafford Act is largely codified in Title 42, §§ 5121-5206. In the CFR, Part 206 (“Federal Disaster Assistance for Disasters Declared on or After November 23, 1988”) of Title 44 codi- fies several elements of the Stafford Act, including obtaining a presidential disaster declaration, the types and scopes of fed- eral assistance, and eligibility conditions. FEMA, as an agency within the U.S. DHS, is responsible for leading the federal disaster response and administers the FEMA PA program. Funding Sources The Highway Trust Fund is the funding source for the FHWA ER program, although the amount needed for the program has exceeded the amount available in the fund and has required special Congressional appropriations in recent years. Since 1972, $100 million a year has been authorized by Congress for the FHWA ER program. Because this amount had not changed until October 1, 2012, funding requests by states typically had exceeded this amount. In addition, the maximum cap for each state had been $100 million for each

7 disaster or catastrophic failure. Since MAP-21 was enacted, there is no longer a maximum amount per disaster per state, with the exception of the supplemental appropriation for Hurricane Sandy. The funding source for the FEMA PA program is the Disaster Relief Fund. The Disaster Relief Fund is funded annually by Congressional appropriations based on a request from FEMA. For example, for FY 2013, the congressio- nal justification for the Disaster Relief Fund amounted to $6,088,926,000 (“Fiscal Year 2013 Budget,” FEMA 2012). Program Administration In general, state EMAs administer the FEMA PA program and reimbursement process differently, in part because of differences in state laws and regulations and in part because of resource availability. For instance, according to Florida statute, applicants may receive only one advance funding payment per funding agreement, and the amount requested is not to exceed the cash needed for the initial 3 months of the work [State of Florida, Florida Statutes, 216.181 (16) (b)]. Another instance is audit requirements: certain states, such as Arizona, require all projects to be audited. This forces Arizona’s Division of Emergency Management to obtain audit- level documentation from Arizona DOT. States also have differing data retention policies, and permit requirements may vary from state to state as well as from municipality to munici- pality. Note that each state’s administrative plan describes the “roles, responsibilities, processes, and procedures” for admin- istering the FEMA PA program and is incorporated into the state’s emergency plan (“Public Assistance Administrative Plan Template” 2013). As mentioned in the 2013 National Review of the Emer- gency Relief Program, FHWA Division Offices implement the FHWA ER program in different ways. For example, some Division Offices perform a higher percentage of final inspec- tions than do others. In addition, Division Offices may allow rates based on different equipment manuals or sources. Other Programs Additional programs useful for state DOTs include FEMA’s Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) Program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and the Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. • The FMAG program is used by state DOTs to obtain reimbursements for expenses related to fire management support activities. • The HMGP is authorized by Section 404 of the Stafford Act and provides grants for the implementation of long- term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. • The CDBG program provides flexible grants to commu- nities (cities, counties, and states) to help them recover from presidentially declared disasters, with an emphasis on low-income areas (“Community Development Block Grant Program,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development n.d.). Although these programs are referenced in parts of the syn- thesis, they were not covered in depth and were not a specific focus of this synthesis study. KEY DEFINITIONS Definitions Used by the FEMA Public Assistance Program Applicant An applicant is a state agency, local government, Indian Tribe, authorized tribal organization, Alaska Native village or organization, or one of certain private nonprofit (PNP) orga- nizations that submit a request for disaster assistance under the presidentially declared major disaster or emergency. The terms “applicant” and “subgrantee” are often used inter- changeably [Public Assistance Applicant Handbook (FEMA P-323) 2010]. Declaration There are two types of declarations: emergency and major disaster. Both declaration types authorize the president to provide federal disaster assistance. However, the cause of the declaration and the type and amount of assistance differ [Public Assistance Applicant Handbook (FEMA P-323) 2010]. Emergency “Emergency” means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the president, federal assistance is needed to supplement state and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States (U.S. Code, Title 42, § 5122 “Definitions”). Emergency Work Emergency work is performed to reduce or eliminate an immediate threat to life, protect health and safety, or pro- tect improved property that is threatened in a significant way as a result of a major disaster. Emergency work frequently includes clearance and removal of debris and temporary restoration of essential public facilities and services (Cate- gories A and B) [Public Assistance Applicant Handbook (FEMA P-323) 2010].

8 Facility A facility is any publicly owned or PNP-owned building, works, system, or equipment (built or manufactured) or cer- tain improved and maintained natural features. Land used for agricultural purposes is not a facility [Public Assistance Applicant Handbook (FEMA P-323) 2010]. Hazard Mitigation Hazard mitigation is any cost-effective action taken to prevent or reduce the threat of future damage to a facility from a disaster event [Public Assistance Applicant Handbook (FEMA P-323) 2010]. Major Disaster A major disaster is any natural catastrophe (including hur- ricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mud- slide, snowstorm, or drought), or regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any part of the United States that, in the determination of the president, causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby (U.S. Code, Title 42, § 5122 “Definitions”). Permanent Work Permanent work is that required to restore a facility, through repairs or replacement, to its predisaster design, function, and capacity in accordance with applicable codes and standards (Categories C through G) [Public Assistance Applicant Hand- book (FEMA P-323) 2010]. Definitions Used by the FHWA ER Program Applicant The state highway agency is the applicant for federal assis- tance under 23 U.S.C. 125 for state highways and local roads and streets that are a part of the federal aid highways (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). Betterments Added protective features, such as the rebuilding of roadways at a higher elevation or the lengthening of bridges, or changes that modify the function or character of a highway facility from what existed prior to the disaster or catastrophic failure, such as additional lanes or added access control, are consid- ered betterments (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). Catastrophic Failure The sudden failure of a major element or segment of the high- way system because of an external cause is a catastrophic fail- ure. The failure must not be primarily attributable to gradual and progressive deterioration or lack of proper maintenance. The closure of a facility because of imminent danger of col- lapse is not in itself a sudden failure (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). Emergency Repairs Emergency repairs are those including temporary traffic oper- ations undertaken during or immediately after the disaster occurrence for the purpose of: 1. Minimizing the extent of the damage, 2. Protecting remaining facilities, or 3. Restoring essential traffic (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). External Cause An outside force or phenomenon that is separate from the dam- aged element and not primarily the result of existing conditions is an external cause (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). Federal-aid Highways Federal-aid highways are all public roads including bridges that are not classified as local or rural minor collectors (or minor collectors located in rural areas) [U.S.C., Title 23, § 101(a)(5)]. Federal-aid Systems Federal-aid systems are the Interstate and the National High- way System. The Interstate is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The National Highway System consists of “the highway routes and connections to transportation facilities depicted on the map submitted by the Secretary to Congress with the report entitled ‘Pulling Together: The National Highway System and its Connections to Major Intermodal Terminals’ and dated May 24, 1996” [U.S.C., Title 23, § 103(b)(2)]. Heavy Maintenance Heavy maintenance is work usually done by highway agen- cies in repairing damage normally expected from seasonal and occasionally unusual natural conditions or occurrences. It includes work at a site required as a direct result of a disaster that can reasonably be accommodated by a state or local road authority’s maintenance, emergency, or contingency program (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”).

9 Natural Disaster A natural disaster is a sudden and unusual natural occurrence, including but not limited to intense rainfall, flood, hurricane, tornado, tidal wave, landslide, volcano eruption, and earth- quake, that causes serious damage (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). Permanent Repairs Permanent repairs are those undertaken (usually after emer- gency repairs have been completed) to restore the highway to its comparable facility. Permanent repairs must have prior FHWA approval and authorization unless done as part of the emergency repairs. Proclamation A proclamation is a declaration of emergency by the governor of an affected state (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). These definitions undoubtedly meet or exceed the definitions of “emergencies” used by state DOTs to initiate emergency procurement procedures, despite that DOTs have varying definitions and triggers for emergency procurement procedures (Gransberg and Loulakis 2012, p. 33). Serious Damage Serious damage is heavy, major, or unusual damage to a highway that severely impairs the safety or usefulness of the highway or results in road closure. Serious damage must be beyond the scope of heavy maintenance (CFR, Title 23, § 668.103 “Definitions”). Key Budget Terms The following terms pertaining to the federal budgetary pro- cess are used in the reimbursement process. The source of these terms is the Government Accountability Office publica- tion GAO-05-734SP, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process (2005). Allocation For the purposes of budgeting, an allocation means a del- egation, authorized in law, by one agency of its authority to obligate budget authority and outlay funds to another agency. (The appropriation or fund from which the allocation is made is generally referred to as the parent appropriation or fund.) An allocation is made when one or more agencies share the administration of a program for which appropriations are made to only one of the agencies or to the president. When an allocation occurs, the Department of the Treasury establishes a subsidiary account called a “transfer appropriation account,” and the agency receiving the allocation may obligate up to the amount included in the account (A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process 2005, p. 9). Appropriations Appropriations are the budget authority to incur obligations and to make payments from the U.S. Treasury for specified purposes. Appropriations do not represent cash actually set aside in the Treasury for purposes specified in the appro- priation act; they represent amounts that agencies may obli- gate during the period of time specified in the respective appropriation acts. An appropriation act is a statute, under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, that generally provides legal authority for federal agencies to incur obligations and make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. Under the rules of both houses, an appropriation act should follow enactment of authorizing legislation (A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process 2005, p. 14). Cost-Benefit Analysis Also called benefit-cost analysis (BCA), this is an analytic technique that compares the costs and benefits of investments, programs, or policy actions to determine which alternative or alternatives maximize net benefits (economic efficiency). The costs and benefits included depend on the scope of the analysis. Net benefits of an alternative are determined by subtracting the present value of costs from the present value of benefits (A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process 2005, p. 36). Fiscal Year The fiscal year for the federal government begins on Octo- ber 1 of each year and ends on September 30 of the following year; it is designated by the calendar year in which it ends (A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process 2005, p. 55). Obligation An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and ser- vices ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of the United States that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the other party beyond the control of the United States. Payment may be made immediately or in the future. An agency incurs an obligation, for example, when it places an order, signs a contract, awards a grant, purchases a service, or takes other actions that require the government to make payments to the public or from one gov- ernment account to another (A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process 2005, p. 70).

10 Obligational Authority Obligational authority is defined as the sum of (1) budget authority enacted for a given fiscal year, (2) unobligated balances of amounts that have not expired brought forward from prior years, (3) amounts of offsetting collections to be credited and available to specific funds or accounts during that year, and (4) budget authority transferred from other funds or accounts. The balance of obligational authority is an amount carried over from one year to the next if the budget authority is available for obligation in the next fiscal year. Not all obli- gational authority that becomes available in a fiscal year is obligated and paid out in that same year. Obligated balance is the already incurred portion of the obligational authority for which payment has not yet been made. The unobligated bal- ance is the portion that has not yet been incurred (A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process 2005, p. 71). Reimbursements A reimbursement is defined as a sum (1) that is received by an agency as a payment for commodities sold or services furnished either to the public or to another government account and (2) that is authorized by law to be credited directly to specific appropriation and fund accounts. Reimbursements between two accounts for goods or services are usually expenditure transactions/transfers. Anticipated reimbursements are, in the case of transactions with the public, estimated collections of expected advances to be received or expected reimbursements to be earned. In transactions between government accounts, anticipated reimbursements consist of orders expected to be received for which orders have been accepted. Agencies cannot obligate against anticipated reimbursements without specific statutory authority (A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process 2005, p. 84). BACKGROUND The useful practices that state DOTs adopt when attempting to recover costs from the FHWA ER and FEMA PA programs are set against a context of cost management concepts, resource management, information management, and the National Inci- dent Management System (NIMS). This context is one that changes over time because legislation necessarily affects the FHWA ER and FEMA PA programs in significant ways. Recent Reports on the FHWA ER and FEMA PA Programs The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Con- gressional Research Service (CRS) periodically publish reports on the FHWA ER and the FEMA PA programs. These two government bodies serve different purposes, and these pur- poses result in differences between their reports. The GAO reports assess the performance of programs (e.g., FHWA ER and FEMA PA programs), in accordance with the GAO’s role as an independent, nonpartisan “congressional watchdog” (“About GAO” n.d.). On the other hand, the CRS reports provide an orientation to these programs. For example, many CRS reports carry the word “Primer” in the title. In addition, many CRS reports are updated periodically as events warrant. Recent Reports on the FHWA ER Program Recent reports on the FHWA ER program include a 2011 GAO report and a 2014 CRS report. The CRS report (Kirk 2014) is updated periodically as events warrant. A GAO analysis of the FHWA ER program resulted in the recommendations given in the report GAO-12-45 Highway Emergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Project Eligi- bility Decisions Needed (2011). The GAO reviewed 83 emer- gency relief project files in three FHWA state offices and found instances of missing or incomplete documentation. GAO’s recommendations to the FHWA included (1) time frames to limit states’ requests for emergency relief funds and to close completed projects, and (2) standardized procedures for reviewing emergency relief documentation and making eligibility decisions. The status of these recommendations can be found on GAO’s web page for report GAO-12-45 (http:// www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-45). The CRS primer for the FHWA ER program is Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems (Kirk 2014). The report discusses the eligibility of federal- aid roads and bridges for the FHWA ER program. The report emphasizes the relationship between state DOTs and the FHWA Division Offices: namely, this relationship facili- tates “a quick, coordinated response to disasters” (p. 2). The FHWA ER program is funded through a permanent annual authorization ($100 million in 2014) and supplemental appro- priations. This CRS report is updated periodically as events warrant. A previous version by the same author is dated November 1, 2012, under the title Emergency Relief Program: Federal-Aid Highway Assistance for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges. Recent Reports on the FEMA PA Program The FEMA PA program is the focus in two recent GAO reports and one report from the CRS. The GAO reviewed FEMA PA grants related to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. The results and recommendations are published in GAO-09-129 Disaster Recovery: FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program Experi- enced Challenges with Gulf Coast Rebuilding (2008). Another report (GAO-12-838) examines FEMA PA obligations in the period fiscal years 2004 through 2011: Federal Disaster Assis- tance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a Jurisdiction’s Capability to Respond and Recover on Its Own (2012). The CRS report is the Congressional Primer on Responding to

11 Major Disasters and Emergencies by McCarthy and Brown (2013) and is updated periodically as events warrant. In report GAO-09-129 Disaster Recovery (2008), the GAO identified challenges that slowed rebuilding projects in (1) project development, (2) information sharing and track- ing, (3) project approvals and appeals, and (4) human capital. The report notes some of the actions the U.S. DHS has taken to address these challenges. The GAO makes other recom- mendations to DHS in the report; the current status of these recommendations can be found on the report’s web page (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-129). In report GAO-12-838 Federal Disaster Assistance (2012), the GAO reviewed FEMA’s anticipated obligations for 508 declarations with PA during fiscal years 2004 through 2011. GAO’s analysis shows that FEMA primarily relied on the per capita damage indicator to determine whether to rec- ommend to the president that a jurisdiction receive public assistance (PA) funding. However, the indicator was found to be artificially low because FEMA’s per capita indicator did not reflect the increase in per capita personal income or inflation. As a result, the GAO recommended that FEMA (1) develop a methodology to more accurately assess a juris- diction’s capability to respond to and recover from a disaster without federal assistance, (2) develop criteria for 100% cost adjustments, and (3) implement goals for and track admin- istrative costs. The current status of these recommendations can be found on the GAO-12-838 report’s web page (http:// www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-838). The Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disas- ters and Emergencies by McCarthy and Brown (2013) dis- cusses the role that the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs play as federal-aid programs for disasters and emergencies. For the benefit of readers new to both programs, the primer discusses the role of the National Response Framework (NRF) and the process of declaring major disasters and emergencies. In addition to the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs, this CRS report mentions that other federal aid is available through several other sources: • Small Business Administration (which provides disaster loans to businesses and homeowners), • U.S. Department of Agriculture, and • Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (in the form of Community Development Block Grant funds being made available for unmet disaster needs). However, these other sources of federal aid are beyond the scope of this synthesis. McCarthy and Brown (2013) discuss the ways in which congressional offices are resources and sources of information to constituents in need of disaster aid; this CRS report is also updated periodically as events warrant. A previous version by the same author is dated May 23, 2012, under the title Congressional Primer on Major Disasters and Emergencies. National Incident Management System NIMS is a “unified national framework for incident man- agement” (National Incident Management System 2008, p. 5). NIMS applies to all aspects of incident management— prevention, protection, response, mitigation, and recovery. The framework enables interoperability among a diverse set of NIMS users. Incident Command System (ICS), an important element of NIMS, is an organizational structure composed of the following major functions: command, operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration. ICS allows federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private sector organizations from different jurisdictions to work together on any incident using this standardized structure. Each of the sections has responsibilities related to docu- mentation and resource management, which can affect the outcome of the reimbursement effort. The Financial/Administration Section includes the Time Unit, which ensures recording for personnel time; the Pro- curement Unit, which works with the Supply Unit in the Logistics Section and local jurisdictions to identify sources for needed resources; and the Cost Unit, which provides cost analysis and identifies and maintains cost information for assigned resources. The Finance/Administration Section chief is responsible for the following tasks: • Manage all financial aspects of an incident. • Provide financial and cost analysis information as requested. • Ensure compensation and claims functions are being addressed relative to the incident. • Develop an operational plan for the Finance/Administra- tion Section and fill Section supply and support needs. • Maintain daily contact with agency(s) headquarters on finance matters. • Ensure that personnel time records are completed accu- rately and transmitted to home agencies. • Ensure that all obligation documents initiated at the incident are properly prepared and completed. • Brief agency administrative personnel on all incident- related financial issues needing attention or follow-up. The Planning Section contains the Resources Unit and the Documentation Unit. The Resources Unit ensures that all resources have checked in at the incident and categorizes and provides the resource status during the incident. The Documen- tation Unit maintains incident files and records actions taken, and files, maintains, and stores incident files. The responsibili- ties of the Planning Section Chief involve the oversight of all data gathering and analysis related to incident operations and assigned resources. More specifically, he or she will • Collect and manage all incident-relevant operational data. • Reassign out-of-service personnel within the ICS orga- nization already on scene, as appropriate.

12 • Compile and display incident status information. • Determine need for specialized resources. • Assemble and disassemble Task Forces and Strike Teams not assigned to Operations. • Establish specialized data collection systems as neces- sary (e.g., weather). • Assemble information on alternative strategies. • Provide periodic predictions on incident potential. • Report significant changes in incident status. • Oversee preparation of the Demobilization Plan. The Logistics Section Chief is responsible for projecting resource needs and providing the support needs through the Service Branch and the Support Branch. The Service Branch supplies communications, medical care, and food services. The Support Branch includes the supply unit, which orders, receives, processes, stores, inventories, and distributes needed supplies, including personnel and tools. The Ground Support Unit provides all ground transportation for the incident and is responsible for maintaining and supplying vehicles, record- ing vehicle usage, and creating traffic plans. The Facilities Unit is responsible for setting up, maintaining, and demobiliz- ing facilities, including the Incident Command Post, Incident Base, and Camps. The Operations Section is responsible for the manage- ment of tactical activities and implementation of the Incident Action Plan. Organizational charts for the sections are presented in Figures 1–3. Resource Management NIMS resource management concepts and principles can assist agencies in the FEMA PA and FHWA ER reimburse- ment processes by standardizing resource classification and tracking methods; through planning, training, and exercises; through the use of standing agreements and contracts; through resource categorization by category, kind, and type; by iden- tifying, ordering, mobilizing, and tracking resources; and acquisition procedures, management of information, and redundant systems. Acquisition procedures include “just in time” procurement and advance acquisition or stockpiling (National Incident Management System 2008, p. 33). National resource typing helps to identify and inventory resources and mobilize resources for mutual aid purposes, and it represents the minimum criteria for the resource component and capabil- ity. Credentialing workers confirms their identity and attributes and is an important aspect of resource typing. NIMS categorizes resource management into (1) pre- paredness initiatives (resource typing, inventorying, and cre- dentialing) and (2) resource management activities during an incident. As seen in Figure 4, after an incident, the key resource management steps are as follows. Step 1—Identify requirements, by determining: • What is needed. • How much is needed. • Where and when it is needed. • Who will be receiving it and using it. Step 2—Order and Acquire. Usually, initial requirements are filled by local resources, but for needed resources that are not available locally, resource-ordering procedures are used. FIGURE 1 Planning Section organization. FIGURE 2 Finance/Administration Section. FIGURE 3 Logistics Section organization.

13 Step 3—Mobilize and Deploy. Mobilization involves the movement of personnel for the purpose of incident response. Specific information, such as the time of departure and arrival, reporting location and assignment, incident number, resource order number, applicable cost, and funding codes, are pro- vided to the personnel. As resources arrive to the incident location or staging areas, a formal check-in process occurs. Step 4—Track and Report. Resource tracking (knowing where resources are) is an important part of resource man- agement, helps in preparations of personnel to receive the resources, and improves the safety and security of the per- sonnel as well as the resources. Reconciliation, accounting, auditing, and inventorying are involved in resource tracking. Step 5—Recovery/Demobilize. Recovery is the final dis- position of all resources, and demobilization is the return of a resource, including personnel, to its original location and status and notifying relevant personnel of its return; a part of the recovery/demobilization process involves the restoration of personnel and equipment to their fully functioning state; expendable resources (one-time-use supplies) should be mon- itored carefully so that all expended resources are accounted for; documentation of the demobilization activities should be collected for reimbursement purposes. Step 6—Reimbursements. Reimbursements replenish funds used for the incident but must follow program guidelines or agreed-upon terms in mutual-aid and assistance agreements. Step 7—Inventorying. Inventory systems can assist agencies in providing real-time information on resource supply, keeping accurate account of their resources, and should be able to flag potential double-counting of personnel or equipment. Tech- nologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS), radio frequency identification (RFID), and bar codes can supple- ment these systems. Resource typing identifies categories for which the resource is used along with kind, components, measures, and type. “Kind” describes like resources. “Com- ponents” are elements that comprise the resource. “Measures” express a resource’s capability or capacity. “Type” identifies the level of resource capability (National Incident Manage- ment System 2008, pp. 42–43). Helpful references include the following: • The FEMA National Integration Center’s Resource Typing Library Tool is an online resource typing tool cataloguing national resource typing definitions and job titles/position qualifications. It can be found at the following hyperlink: https://rtlt.ptaccenter.org/Public (“Resource Typing Library Tool” n.d.). FIGURE 4 Resource management steps (Source: National Incident Management System 2008, p. 35).

14 • “Resource Management,” Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., last updated Nov. 29, 2013 [Online]. Available: http://www.fema.gov/resource- management. • Appendix A of the NIMS Core document National Inci- dent Management System (2008). • “National Resource Typing Criteria,” NIMS Guide 0001, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., March 27, 2008. Incident Command System Forms The following ICS forms can be used to help track resources during incidents: • ICS 201—Initial incident briefing form captures essential information, including map and description of event. • ICS 202—The first page of the Incident Action Plan (IAP), this form contains incident information, IC’s objectives, weather information, a general safety mes- sage, and a table of contents. • ICS 203—The second page of the IAP, this form pro- vides the list of incident management and supervisory personnel and their assignments. • ICS 204—The Assignment List form contains assigned resources, leader, and number of personnel assigned to each resource. • ICS 207—Incident Organization Chart showing ICS position assignments, including the individuals respon- sible for specific reimbursement-related activities. • ICS 209—Incident status summary provides a detailed description of the incident and resources required. • ICS 211—Incident check-in list records personnel and equipment arriving at the incident, arrival times, and method of travel. • ICS 214—Activity log records activity of labor and equipment. • ICS 215—The form used for the incident planning meeting helps develop tactical assignments and identify needed resources. • ICS 315—Operational planning worksheet provides details of resource assignment decisions. • ICS 218—This form supports vehicle and equipment tracking. • ICS 220—Air operations information is summarized on this form. • ICS 210—Changes in resource status are recorded on this form. Mutual Aid Agreements and Assistance Agreements During large incidents, aid from other states, the National Guard, the private sector, and NGOs may be necessary. Pre- established coordination systems and mutual aid agreements facilitate the process of requesting and receiving aid, and reimbursement. A JFO consisting of federal agencies includ- ing FEMA is established. Assistance flows from the JFO to state and local emergency operations centers (EOCs), agencies, and entities, whereas requests for assistance are issued from them to the JFO, as shown in Figure 5 (National FIGURE 5 Flow of requests and assistance during large-scale incidents (Source: National Incident Management System 2008, p. 36).

15 Incident Management System 2008, p. 26). The Multiagency Coordination System (MACS) integrates facilities, equipment, personnel, and procedures into a unified system to coordinate resources and support emergency operations. FEMA’s Mutual Aid Agreements for Public Assistance and Fire Management Assistance policy (2012), Disaster Assistance Policy 9523.6, applies to Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) agreements and allows the reimbursement of eligible FEMA PA or FEMA FMAG costs to the requesting entity from providing entities. The EMAC, administered by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), facilitates emergency assistance through prearranged agreements, allowing states to send resources (personnel, equipment, and commodities) to other states. The EMAC was established in 1993 and rati- fied by Congress in 1995; all 50 states, the District of Colum- bia, and the U.S. territories are now members of EMAC. The state EMA of the receiving state collects cost documenta- tion submitted by the providing state, audits it, and then reimburses the providing state. Models for EMAC Mission Ready Packages, which use NIMS typing and EMAC agree- ments, are available through the Emergency Management Resource Center of the American Public Works Association (APWA) (“Resource Center: Emergency Management” n.d.; http://www.apwa.net/ResourceCenter/Category/Emergency- Management). For Tropical Storms Irene and Lee 10 states requested mutual aid, and 25 states responded. Of the total of 1,126 personnel, 778 were deployed to Vermont, 158 to New York, and 155 to New Jersey. There were a total of 68 missions, of which 40.8% were National Guard resources provided to Vermont. Costs of the deployment were $10.3 million for Vermont, $2.2 million for New York, and $281,000 for New Jersey (Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee: After Action Report Critique 2012). The After Action Report for Tropical Storms Irene and Lee presented numerous lessons learned and areas of accom- plishment. One of the major findings was that states that had a high level of EMAC event preparation had a much higher level of success than did other states; trained and qualified personnel enhanced the facilitation of mutual aid assistance. In addition, the following lessons learned were provided in the report: • Deployed personnel are responsible for organizing and submitting all receipts for expenses they incur. • Some deployed personnel did not have adequate guid- ance on recordkeeping and reimbursement procedures— both assisting states and providing states can provide better guidance. • Early provision of guidance sped up the reimbursement process. • Some financial personnel may not fully understand EMAC or the Req-A process for cost estimating. • State should have financial personnel participate in train- ing and exercises on EMAC requisitions and reimburse- ment procedures; also, states that are not experienced with disaster response and reimbursements can request assistance from A-Teams from other states trained in logistics, operations, and finance/administration. • Knowing the type of disaster management system used by a requesting state allows the providing state to provide just-in-time training to its personnel. • Early request for assistance and early predisaster dec- larations by governors were also cited as improving the chances of success. • Assisting states sending a smaller unit for advance information on conditions in the requesting state was beneficial. • Resource requests are to be as clear as possible. To that end, NIMS resource typing was useful in ensuring that the request was clear and that the correct resource was provided. • There is a need for executive level training on EMAC (Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee: After Action Report Critique 2012). The following were described in the report as “best practices.” • Louisiana developed and provided reimbursement pack- ages with instructions for accurate documentation for both request and providing states. Louisiana created an EMAC unit and also provides exercises for personnel to maintain proficiency in the EMAC process. • Minnesota requires all of its deployed personnel to sign a Code of Conduct before leaving the state to ensure that the state is represented well in other states (Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee: After Action Report Critique 2012). INFORMATION MANAGEMENT A key element of the reimbursement process for both pro- grams is documentation, which requires information manage- ment. The three key stages of information management are document (or capture), administer (store and manage), and retrieve (Improving Management of Transportation Informa- tion 2013, p. 121). Information-sharing technologies and tools help FEMA and FHWA communicate important information, such as project decisions, with their staff, regional/state representatives, and applicants. These technologies and tools can also alleviate negative consequences of personnel changes. As shown in Table 2, documentation includes different information types in different formats—Word files, spread- sheets, databases, text files, geographic information system (GIS) maps, and computer-assisted drafting (CAD) files for engineering diagrams.

16 In storing and managing the information, issues that need to be addressed include tools and techniques for managing information; getting the “right content to the right audi- ence on the right device and under the right circumstances”; governance; and data management plans, metadata, storage management, and data standards. The research done for Improving Management of Transpor- tation Information (2013) resulted in the following recommen- dations for state DOTs: • Establish agency goals for improving management of data and information. • Establish policies and procedures within a governance framework to define the roles and responsibilities of the business units and librarians in managing data and information for the agency. • Demonstrate the return on investment for investing in methods and tools to improve the management of trans- portation data and information. • Develop data business plans as an option. • Share data and information. • Use the Information Management Lifecycle and apply the appropriate competencies for each stage of the life cycle. • Use improved technology tools to help the business units and information managers manage, store, and retrieve information for all customers in an easily understandable format. • Use formal communication channels to support the sharing and exchange of information among business units, information managers, and internal and external customers (Improving Management of Transportation Information 2013, p. 124) The following approaches were recommended for each of the three information management stages—capture, administer, and retrieve: Capture • Require the use of metadata, define the metadata stan- dards to be used, and provide examples of the types of metadata to be used at the DOT. • Establish agency policies for the collection and capture of transportation information. • Use both data and content management practices for managing information. • Use technology tools to facilitate the capture of data and information. • Use a single portal for access to and distribution of information. • Develop relationships internally with business units and externally with peer DOTs and other national and international transportation agencies to capture, share, and exchange data and information. Administer • Establish governance policies for managing data and information across the agency. Source: NCHRP Report 754: Improving Management of Transportation Information (2013, p. 121). TABLE 2 TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION BY FUNCTION

17 • Establish a data business plan to help manage data and information. • Follow a multistep, multiphase approach for implement- ing data management programs. • Participate in a peer group. • Find a champion. • Assign resources and appropriate competencies. • Establish mission and vision statements for managing data and information at the DOT. • Establish categorization schemes for data and informa- tion at the DOT to ensure organized, methodical manage- ment of data and information. • Use semantic schemes. • Use authoritative glossaries and vocabularies. • Use business intelligence tools to facilitate integration and sharing of data in an easily understandable format. • Use multiple types of business intelligence tools to improve management of data and information. • Use taxonomies for classifying and grouping transpor- tation information at the point of storage. • Use the cloud for storing large data sets. • Use technology. • Use taxonomy management tools. • Develop policies for archiving of data rooted in the business with consideration for privacy of data and information. • Develop formal records retention policies and proce- dures to support preservation of important current and historical documents for a DOT. • Use state libraries and national transportation libraries to supplement the archives maintained by the DOT’s libraries and business units. • Use digital preservation. • Provide content (data and information) in an electronic format to enable delivery to the widest audience possible. • Select methods for distribution of information and data from the most effective available technology tools, including the web and social media. • Use visualization tools (e.g., maps) for delivery and dissemination of data and information. • Use market information management techniques, such as a newsletter to advertise the types of transporta- tion information available from the DOT to the user community. Retrieve • Explore the use of available technology tools for retrieval of information (Improving Management of Transporta- tion Information 2013, p. 126). Other Useful Technologies Technologies such as cloud technologies, document-sharing and collaboration tools, and electronic signatures make infor- mation management more efficient. Electronic Forms and Signatures Transportation work requires many forms (change orders, permits) that must be completed and signed by one or more persons. Therefore, good document management practices and technologies, such as electronic signatures and use of electronic forms, are important. At the same time, safeguards to ensure the authenticity of electronic signatures should be in place. Soft- ware systems that allow the attachment of various files to elec- tronic forms facilitate document handling, storage, and retrieval. Cloud Technologies Cloud technologies can greatly expand an agency’s storage capabilities. Cloud-based storage systems can also be accessed from any location with Internet access. Three downsides to cloud technologies are security concerns, the need for Inter- net access, and time required to scan documents. The security concerns may be addressed through cloud security. The sec- ond issue may become an issue during disasters; it may be addressed by storing items on a PC or mobile device and then uploading them to the cloud storage site once Internet access becomes available. The third issue can be addressed through appropriate policy formulation based on available staff and resources—a policy requiring 100% electronic storage could backfire if delays are caused due to the scanning time. Importance of Cybersecurity As state DOTs transition from analog to digital storage for all of their documentation, cybersecurity needs to be an integral part of this process. Consistent, Automated Backup Consistent backup of important documents is an important practice. This can be facilitated by automated backup tools and systems that are now widely available. IMPACT OF RECENT LEGISLATION ON FHWA EMERGENCY RELIEF AND FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Impact of the Map-21 Act MAP-21, transportation legislation that was enacted on July 6, 2012, and went into effect on October 1, 2012, affected the FHWA ER program in a number of ways. It also had an impact on the FEMA PA program’s debris removal element. The fol- lowing are the key changes to the program indicated in Sec- tion 1107 of the MAP-21 legislation: • $100 million per event per state limit has been eliminated (with the exception of supplemental appropriation for Hurricane Sandy, which reinstated the limit for the Sandy funds).

18 • Replacement of the term “pre-disaster condition” with “comparable facility.” • In certain instances debris removal previously eligible under FHWA ER funding will be eligible only under FEMA PA funding. • Transit service costs if a detour is not possible are now eligible. • The 180-day period for emergency repairs for 100% eligibility may be extended if a site cannot be accessed [U.S.C., Title 23, § 120(e)(3)]. • In certain cases, the federal share for permanent repairs may be increased to 90% [U.S.C., Title 23, § 120(e)(4)]. • The list of eligible sites and costs need to be submitted to FHWA within 2 years of the date of the disaster. • Climate change risk mitigation measures are now eli- gible (“MAP-21: Emergency Relief (ER) Questions & Answers” 2013). Further guidance on these and other changes are provided in FHWA’s revised 2013 Emergency Relief Manual. How- ever, note that the amount of the annual FHWA ER autho- rization has not changed and remains at $100 million per year. Supplemental Appropriations up to $500 million per state may be provided under the Disaster Relief Assistance Act of 2013 (“MAP-21: Emergency Relief (ER) Questions & Answers” 2013). The Disaster Relief Assistance Act of 2013 is Division A of PL 113-2. Impact of the SRIA The impact of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 was immense. According to the AON Benfield Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report (2013), Hurricane Sandy resulted in 254 deaths, an economic loss of $65 billion, and insured losses of $28.2 billion (AON Benfield 2013, p. 5). SRIA of 2013 (Division B of PL 113-2] was signed into law on January 29, 2013. The SRIA law pertains to permanent work and debris removal and adds section 428 to the Stafford Act. The affected components are sections 403(a)(3)(A), 406, 407, and 502(a)(5) of the Stafford Act. SRIA authorizes a pilot program that allows applicants to use alternative procedures for permanent work and debris removal projects eligible under the FEMA PA program. Additional information about these alternative procedures is provided in chapter two. The goals for the alternative procedures, as stated in PL 113-2, are to further the following goals: (1) reducing the costs to the Federal Government of providing such assistance; (2) increasing flexibility in the administration of such assistance; (3) expediting the provision of such assistance to a State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of a private non- profit facility; and (4) providing financial incentives and disincentives for a State, tribal or local government, or owner or operator of a private nonprofit facility for the timely and cost-effective completion of projects with such assistance (Sandy Recovery Improve- ment Act, U.S.C. Title 42, 5189f “Public assistance pro- gram alternative procedures”). For an in-depth analysis of the impact of the Stafford Act amendments upon the FEMA PA program, please refer to Brown et al. (2013, pp. 7–16). The changes analyzed include the PA alternative procedures (p. 7) and alternative procedures for debris removal assistance (p. 12). Nonetheless, the SRIA amends several provisions of the Stafford Act, so the FEMA PA program is only one of several affected federal programs (Brown et al. 2013, Summary). Updates and revisions of the Brown et al. source may be published in the future as addi- tional major disasters occur. IMPACT OF THE 2013 NATIONAL REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM Further changes to the FHWA ER program are possible based on the recommendations in the 2013 National Review of the Emergency Relief Program. The Final Report (National Review of the Emergency Relief Program 2013) was based on field reviews in six states conducted by the FHWA Pro- gram Management Improvement Team. That team, in the Office of Infrastructure, performed a national review of the FHWA ER program and published the results in May 2013. Information from field reviews done at six state DOTs (Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Dakota, Oregon, and New Jer- sey) in February through April 2012 was used in the review and addressed issues highlighted in the GAO report High- way Emergency Relief [GAO-12-45] (2011). The GAO had performed its review of the FHWA ER program during the November 2010 to November 2011 time period and pro- duced the following recommendations: • Establish specific time frames to limit states’ ability to request emergency relief funds years after an event’s occurrence; • No longer permit states to transfer unobligated allo- cations from prior emergency relief to a new event {note that in January 2012, FHWA issued guidance to no longer permit this practice and implemented inter- nal controls to track states’ unused funds [GAO-12-45 Highway Emergency Relief (2011) Recommendations for Executive Action: http://www.gao.gov/products/ GAO-12-45]}; • Establish clear time frames for states to close out com- pleted projects to improve FHWA’s ability to assess whether expended program funds are no longer needed and could be deobligated; and • Establish standardized procedures for FHWA Divi- sion Offices to follow in reviewing emergency relief documentation and making eligibility decisions. This includes: – Better guidance on approving and retaining detailed damage inspection reports; – Verification that emergency repairs are completed within 180 days and only these types of repairs receive 100% federal funding; and

19 – Consistent standards for approving betterments, including benefit-cost analysis [Highway Emergency Relief (GAO-12-45) 2011, p. 40]. The primary recommendations of the 2013 National Review of the Emergency Relief Program were as follows: • FHWA Division Office roles in damage assessments, risk-based oversight of FHWA ER projects, and docu- mentation reviews should be developed. • The Division Office should create and use a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the implementation of the FHWA ER program. • The FHWA ER Manual and Detailed Damage Inspection Report (DDIR) form should be updated according to the review results. • Improved tracking of FHWA ER program application process, allocations, obligations, expenditures, and key project milestones was recommended. • National, state, and local FHWA ER training should be developed (National Review of the Emergency Relief Program 2013, p. 1). STUDY APPROACH 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 phone calls, and case studies. The screening survey yielded 35 state DOT respondents and is contained in Appendix A. The survey questions inquired about respondent experiences with the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs, including the application and documentation processes, eligibility requirements, appeals and audits, amendments, cost-sharing, LPAs, and contrac- tor issues. Additional topics included in the survey were cost tracking, document retention and backup practices, and sat- isfaction levels. The information review included interviews and electronic communications with panel members and rep- resentatives of FHWA, FEMA, state EMAs, and APWA, and a literature review including relevant legislation, FEMA PA and FHWA ER manuals, and GAO and CRS reports on the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs. This process yielded information about the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs and ongoing and planned changes. Chapter Two—Federal Emergency Reimbursement Programs • Major elements of the FEMA PA and FHWA ER pro- grams are presented in this chapter. Chapter Three—State Departments of Transportation Experience with Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance and FHWA Emergency Relief Programs • Major challenges experienced by state DOTs are described in this chapter. Because the survey did not achieve an 80% response rate, the survey response is not considered representative, so no summary tables pre- senting responses in terms of percentages are included. Chapter Four—State Departments of Transportation Case Examples • This chapter contains the case study findings and the strategies and practices identified in the synthesis study. The major topic areas covered include roles and respon- sibilities, role of state emergency management agencies, disaster assessment, financial management systems and project codes, documentation and information manage- ment, cost sharing, local public agencies, contracting, appeals, and reimbursement time. • The case study interview guide is contained in Appen- dix C, and the entire contents of the case studies and a list of case study participants are found in Appendix D. Chapter Five—Conclusions • In addition to the conclusions, this chapter includes a summary of the effective practices identified in the syn- thesis study, a list of helpful FEMA PA and FHWA ER resources, and items requiring additional research. Appendices • Appendix A presents the survey developed for this synthesis. • Appendix B provides examples of presidential declara- tions and a list of recent presidential disaster declarations for case study states. • Appendix C contains the Case Study Interview Guide. • Appendix D contains the list of case study participants and the case examples. • Appendices E through I present supplemental informa- tion relevant to the case studies. • Appendix J presents FEMA Public Assistance Data for state DOTs. The data for the period October 1, 2007 through October 24, 2012, have been summarized in the following charts: Number and Type of Declarations, Number of Project Worksheets, Project Worksheets by FEMA Region, Event Types by FEMA Region, and Project Worksheets by Work Category.