Proposed MAP Chapter 9 Revisions

1. Proposed MAP Chapter 9 Revisions Environmental Review and Requirements

2. MAP guide 2019 • Timing • Draft for internal review and leadership briefing - late May, 2019 • Draft for Industry comments - late June, 2019 • Publication tentatively scheduled for Dec 2019

3. Choice Limiting Actions Defined Specifically, no action concerning the proposal shall be taken prior to completion of the environmental review which would: • have an adverse environmental impact, • limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, or • prejudice the ultimate decision on the proposal. Activities that limit the choice of reasonable alternatives include an action or commitment to undertake real property acquisition, repair, rehabilitation, construction, demolition or site clearance.

4. Modify Initial Contact HUD environmental policy requires that there be a limitation of certain activities or actions by any direct or indirect parties to the transaction from the time of initial contact with HUD until HUD has completed the environmental review process. Initial contact includes concept meetings, pre-application or application submission, or other meetings or correspondence with HUD or with a lender for the purpose of preparing an application for FHA multifamily mortgage insurance. (MAP Guide 9.2 A 6) Change from “initial contact” to either concept meeting, pre-application or firm application depending on at which stage the project is introduced to HUD.

5. Permitted Development Activities In conjunction with environmental review, developer may: • Conduct soil borings associated with environmental site characterization activities • Initiate Wetland determination Consult MAP guide Section 9.2 A 6 (a) for other limited permitted activities that are not considered “choice limiting.”

6. Site Aggregation To group together and evaluate as a single project all individual activities which are related either on a geographical or functional basis, or are logical parts of a composite of contemplated actions. – in process but objective is to provide some clear boundaries and definition as to what HUD will permit to aggregate (and what we won’t)

7. Clarification of Role of Environmental Clearance Officer (ECO) The HUD environmental regulations require Environmental Clearance Officer (ECO) review and comment on certain environmental reviews. HEROS incorrectly suggests that ECOs are ‘approving’ or ‘disapproving’ the Part 50 environmental review. Our purpose is to clarify that the ECO role is to review and comment, not make a recommendation. This small change in procedure represents a big change in establishing that MF preparers and Approving Officials are the decision makers for HEROS environmental reviews. - HUD ECO’s will be requested to review and provide comment on all HEROS reviews but will no longer be “certifying” reviews in HEROS.

8. When To Involve The HUD ECO ECO’s are currently required to get involved in the FHA MF’s environmental review process at the following times: • First, under 24 CFR 50.32, environmental assessments (EAs) for projects over 200 lots, dwelling units or beds must be sent to the ECO for review and comment. • Second, the MAP Guide (9.2.B.4) requires the ECO to review and comment on any environmental review in which the project is located in the normally unacceptable or unacceptable noise zone, or where the ECO has prepared a special study or as required by agency agreement or MOU. • Additionally, the MAP guide recommends giving the ECO the option to review and comment when special analysis is required or the project involves potentially significant environmental concerns. • Finally, please note that MF staff are encouraged to reach out to their ECO for TA outside of this formal ‘review and comment’ process and in fact the earlier the outreach, the better.

9. Noise In Projects < 200 Units Current MAP Guide requires ECO review of projects with “normally unacceptable” noise levels regardless of size, even for projects that are “categorically excluded”. • Proposed MAP Guide change eliminates ECO review for projects with < 200 units in an normally unacceptable noise range (65-75 db); • Eliminates confusion by making 200 units or greater the consistent standard for requiring an ECO review.

10. Regulatory Reform HUD Multifamily Housing is working with headquarters Office of General Counsel and the Office of Energy and Environment and HUD has received comments and ideas on streamlining environmental provisions in response to our notice seeking comment on ways to reduce regulatory burden under EO 13771 and 13777. Hopefully we will be able to report on our progress soon.

11. More Info & Follow-up • Feed back, Questions, Comments: • John Schneider at john.schneider@hud.gov

12. Environmental Case StudiesMay 14, 2019 Office of Multifamily ProductionChicago Regional Office

13. Case Study 1 Floodplain/Floodway Issues Harbour TownNoblesville, IN

14. Harbour TownNoblesville, IN

15. Improvements Along Reservoir

16. Morse Reservoir

17. Floodwall

18. Boat Slips

19. Reservoir Walk

20. Tributary Slope

21. Plat of Survey

22. Aerial View/Site Delineation

23. FEMA Flood Map/Firmette

24. NWI Wetland Map

25. Incidental Floodway Exception

26. Floodways and Proposed Actions 55.2 b 3 i

27. Critical Action Defined HUD divides its environmental review by whether the proposed activity is a critical or a noncritical action. A critical action means any activity for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great because such flooding might result in a loss of life, injury to persons, or damage to property. Critical actions include activities that create, maintain or extend the useful life of those structures or facilities that are likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury during flood or storm events, such as hospitals or residential care facilities. All Section 242 new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects for hospitals are considered critical actions, as are Section 241 construction projects, and Sections 223(f) and 223(a)(7) refinancing (health care facilities). (24 CFR part 55.2 (b) (3) (i))

28. Incidental Portion Defined (7) HUD’s or the responsible entity’s approval of a project site, an incidental portion of which is situated in an adjacent floodplain, including the floodway or Coastal High Hazard Area, or wetland, but only if: (i) The proposed construction and landscaping activities (except for minor grubbing, clearing of debris, pruning, sodding, seeding, or other similar activities) do not occupy or modify the 100-year floodplain (or the 500-year floodplain for critical actions) or the wetland; (24 CFR Part 55.12 b (7))

29. Functionally Dependent Use Defined (b) (6) defined as a land use that must necessarily be conducted in close proximity to water (e.g., a dam, marina, port facility, water-front park, and many types of bridges and is allowed only if the proposed non-critical action is processed under § 55.20. (decision-making process aka five step process) (24 CFR Part 55.2 b (6)) Additionally, 55.12(c)(7) may permit this project if all conditions are met: • There is no construction or landscaping in a floodplain (other than incidental or functionally dependent uses) • Appropriate provisions are made for site drainage • A permanent covenant or comparable restriction is put on the site to ensure the continued preservation of any floodplain -- Project may be able to proceed.

30. Modified Eight-Step Process 55.12 Inapplicability of 24 CFR part 55 to certain categories of proposed actions. (a) The decision-making steps in § 55.20(b), (c), and (g) (steps 2, 3, and 7) do not apply to the following categories of proposed actions: (2) HUD’s actions under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701) for the purchase or refinancing of existing multifamily housing projects, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, board and care facilities, and intermediate care facilities, in communities that are in good standing under the NFIP. (3) HUD’s or the recipient’s actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or improvement of existing multifamily housing projects, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, board and care facilities, intermediate care facilities, and one-to four-family properties, in communities that are in the Regular Program of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and are in good standing, provided that the number of units is not increased more than 20 percent, the action does not involve a conversion from nonresidential to residential land use, the action does not meet the thresholds for ‘‘substantial improvement’ under § 55.2(b)(10), and the footprint of the structure and paved areas is not significantly increased.

31. Modified Eight-Step Process Eight-Step Decision-making Process (55.20) (Struck-through paragraphs represent steps that may be omitted in the Five-step process) Step 1. Determine whether the proposed action is located in the 100-year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions) or results in new construction in a wetland. If the action does not occur in a floodplain or result in new construction in a wetland, then no further compliance with this part is required. (no new construction is narrowly defined as including landscaping with the exception of “minor grading and grubbing”. Step 2. Notify the public and agencies responsible for floodplain management or wetlands protection at the earliest possible time of a proposal to consider an action in a 100-year floodplain (or a 500-year floodplain for a Critical Action) or wetland and involve the affected and interested public and agencies in the decision-making process. Step 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the proposed action in a 100-year floodplain (or a 500-year floodplain for a Critical Action) or wetland. Step 4. Identify and evaluate the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the occupancy or modification of the 100-year floodplain (or the 500-year floodplain for a Critical Action) or the wetland and the potential direct and indirect support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the proposed action.

32. Modified Eight-Step Process Step 5. Where practicable, design or modify the proposed action to minimize the potential adverse impacts to and from the 100-year floodplain (or the 500-year floodplain for a Critical Action) or the wetland and to restore and preserve its natural and beneficial functions and values. Step 6. Reevaluate the proposed action to determine: (1) Whether the action is still practicable in light of exposure to flood hazards in the floodplain or wetland, possible adverse impacts on the floodplain or wetland, the extent to which it will aggravate the current hazards to other floodplains or wetlands, and the potential to disrupt the natural and beneficial functions and values of floodplains or wetlands; and 2) Whether alternatives preliminarily rejected at Step 3 (paragraph (c)) of this section are practicable in light of information gained in Steps 4 and 5 (paragraphs (d) and (e)) of this section. Step 7. (1) If the reevaluation results in a determination that there is no practicable alternative to locating the proposal in the 100-year floodplain (or the 500-year floodplain for a Critical Action) or the wetland, publish a final notice Step 8. Upon completion of the decision-making process in Steps 1 through 7, implement the proposed action. There is a continuing responsibility on HUD (or on the responsible entity authorized by 24 CFR part 58) and the recipient (if other than the responsible entity) to ensure that the mitigating measures identified in Step 7 are implemented.