Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) FY 2024-25: Hazard Mitigation Grants for U.S. States, Tribes, and Local Governments

Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) FY 2024-25: Hazard Mitigation Grants for U.S. States, Tribes, and Local Governments

BRIC is one of FEMA’s main pre-disaster mitigation programs. The point is not to pay for recovery after damage has already happened. It is to help public entities reduce future losses by hardening assets, moving vulnerable facilities out of harm’s way, or investing in projects that make communities more resilient before a disaster strikes. The current FY 2024-25 funding opportunity is open for 120 days, and FEMA lists the submission deadline as July 23, 2026.

That makes BRIC worth attention right now for governments that already know their biggest hazard problems. If your community has recurring flood damage, exposed pump stations, fragile utility infrastructure, unsafe school shelter needs, or critical facilities sitting in a high-risk area, BRIC is the kind of program that can turn a mitigation plan into a funded project. The application is not simple, though. FEMA expects coordination, documentation, and a clear mitigation case, not just a good idea.

Key details at a glance

What BRIC is actually for

BRIC exists to help public entities spend money before the next storm, flood, fire, or other natural hazard does the damage. FEMA describes the program as a hazard mitigation program that makes federal funds available for activities that promote resilience for natural hazards. In plain terms, that means the project should reduce risk, not just repair an existing problem.

The examples FEMA gives are useful because they show the program’s shape. School safe rooms are about life safety. Utility hardening is about keeping infrastructure running when the weather turns severe. Relocating critical facilities out of flood areas is about getting vulnerable assets out of repeated harm. Securing pump stations is about protecting services that many people depend on without thinking about them until they fail.

That pattern matters for applicants. BRIC is usually strongest when the project has a specific hazard, a specific site, and a specific mitigation action. A vague resilience proposal is much harder to defend than a project that says, for example, “this school, this floodplain, this utility asset, and this engineering solution will lower loss over time.” The more concrete the project, the easier it is to explain why federal mitigation dollars should go here.

Who should seriously consider applying

BRIC is a good fit for state agencies, local governments, Tribal governments, and territorial governments that already have a hazard mitigation pipeline. If your office has done the planning work, identified the vulnerable assets, and can turn those priorities into a viable project, this opportunity can be a serious source of support.

It is especially relevant if:

• you have a recurring hazard problem that costs money year after year;
• your mitigation concept is tied to a real public asset or public service;
• your organization can work through a federal application and a project management process;
• you have the staff or partners needed to handle environmental, historic preservation, and compliance steps; and
• your state, Tribal, or territorial mitigation office is already involved.

It is less useful if you are still at the brainstorming stage. BRIC rewards specificity. A community that knows it needs floodproofing, safe-room capacity, utility resilience, or relocation of a vulnerable facility is in a better position than one that just wants to “do something about resilience” but has not identified a project, a site, or a hazard outcome.

Eligibility and portal rules

The FEMA page is clear about who can participate: states, U.S. territories, federally recognized Tribal Nations, and local governments. If your organization sits outside those categories, BRIC is probably not the right path.

One important procedural detail is that eligible applicants and subapplicants must apply through the FEMA GO portal. FEMA also says the full Notice of Funding Opportunity is published on Grants.gov. That means you should treat Grants.gov as the official notice source and FEMA GO as the place where the application actually moves forward.

The page also includes a warning that matters if you worked on an earlier version of the program: previous subapplications submitted for the initial BRIC funding opportunity published in January 2025 will not be reviewed. FEMA asks applicants and subapplicants to review, update, and resubmit new applications under this FY 2024-25 opportunity instead. If you have older material on file, do not assume you can simply reuse it unchanged.

Timeline and deadline

The current opportunity window is unusually easy to summarize:

• application period length: 120 days
• deadline: July 23, 2026
• where to submit: FEMA GO
• notice source: Grants.gov

That deadline is the key date to work backward from. For a mitigation grant, the real internal deadline needs to arrive much earlier than the federal close date. You will want enough time for scope refinement, cost estimates, partner signoff, hazard data review, and any state or Tribal coordination required by your own process.

If your team is starting from zero in late spring 2026, the safest move is to break the work into short pieces: project definition first, evidence next, budget after that, and submission only when every required system is ready. These grants are not well suited to a last-minute scramble.

What to prepare before you apply

BRIC applications are stronger when they look like a mitigation decision package rather than a generic grant request. At minimum, you should be ready to explain:

1. the hazard you are addressing;
2. the facility, asset, or service at risk;
3. the mitigation action you want to fund;
4. why the action is more effective than doing nothing or making small repairs;
5. how the project reduces future loss;
6. who owns or manages the site; and
7. what approvals, coordination, or analysis may still be needed.

The project examples on FEMA’s page point to the kinds of supporting evidence that usually matter. If you are proposing a safe room, you should be ready to show who uses it and why that location is vulnerable. If you are hardening utilities or pump stations, you should be ready to show the service impact of failure. If you are relocating a critical facility, you should be ready to show the repeated exposure problem and the benefit of moving it.

A strong application package usually benefits from:

• a clear hazard narrative with local or regional data;
• maps or site information that show exposure;
• a realistic project scope with a defined mitigation outcome;
• an implementation plan that reflects permitting and coordination needs;
• a budget that is specific enough to be credible; and
• agreement among the public partners who control the site or service.

The official FEMA page does not give you a shortcut around this work. It gives you the program frame. The applicant still has to make the mitigation case.

How to think about fit

The best BRIC applicants tend to be public entities that already know the project is needed and can explain why it belongs in a federal mitigation competition. The program is a poor match for work that is really maintenance, emergency response, or routine asset replacement. It is also a poor match for projects that do not clearly reduce future disaster risk.

You should ask three questions before investing real time:

• Is the problem tied to a natural hazard that keeps creating future loss?
• Does the project change that risk in a measurable way?
• Can we support the project with enough technical and administrative detail to satisfy a federal review?

If the answer to all three is yes, BRIC is worth pursuing. If not, you may need a different funding source or more planning before you are ready.

Common mistakes to avoid

The biggest BRIC mistake is treating it like a general public works grant. FEMA is not just funding construction. It is funding mitigation. If the proposal cannot explain the hazard reduction, it will be weak no matter how useful the project sounds.

Other common mistakes include:

• relying on a January 2025 subapplication without updating it for this opportunity;
• waiting too long to coordinate with the state, Tribal, or territorial mitigation office;
• assuming FEMA GO is optional;
• leaving the mitigation outcome vague;
• underselling the risk problem and overemphasizing the wish list;
• failing to align the budget with the actual project scope; and
• underestimating the time needed for environmental, historic preservation, or other compliance steps.

Another subtle mistake is writing for insiders instead of reviewers. Your application should show why the hazard matters, why the site is vulnerable, and why this mitigation action is the right choice. If a reviewer has to guess at any of those points, the application is weaker than it needs to be.

Practical application strategy

The most efficient way to approach BRIC is to start with the project story and then build the paperwork around it. Do not start with the forms. Start with the question “what are we protecting, what is the hazard, and what is the mitigation action?”

From there, build a short internal memo that answers four things:

1. What asset or service is at risk?
2. What is the hazard history or exposure?
3. What project would reduce the loss?
4. What do we already have in hand, and what is still missing?

Once that memo is clear, the rest of the application becomes much easier. You can assign tasks: one person gathers site data, another handles budget and cost estimates, another checks coordination requirements, and another keeps the FEMA GO submission moving. If your organization has a state or Tribal hazard mitigation office, bring them in early rather than late. Their involvement can help you avoid a project that looks good on paper but does not fit program expectations.

You should also treat the current NOFO as a resubmission opportunity if you already worked on BRIC in the past. FEMA’s instruction to update and resubmit is important. Old material may still be useful as a starting point, but the submission should reflect the current opportunity, current requirements, and current project facts.

FAQ

Is BRIC only for disaster recovery?

No. BRIC is for pre-disaster hazard mitigation. The point is to reduce future damage, not reimburse damage that already happened.

Can local governments apply directly?

Yes. FEMA lists local governments among the eligible applicants, along with states, U.S. territories, and federally recognized Tribal Nations.

Do I submit through Grants.gov or FEMA GO?

The FEMA page says eligible applicants and subapplicants must apply through FEMA GO. The full notice is published on Grants.gov.

Are old BRIC subapplications still valid?

Not for this funding opportunity. FEMA says previous subapplications from the initial January 2025 opportunity will not be reviewed.

What kinds of projects fit best?

The FEMA page points to school safe rooms, utility hardening, relocating critical facilities out of flood areas, and securing pump stations as examples. Projects that clearly reduce natural-hazard risk are the best match.

Is there a fixed award amount?

Not on the program page. FEMA’s page describes the funding opportunity and application process, but does not list a single fixed grant amount.

Official links

• FEMA BRIC program page: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/learn/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities
• Grants.gov notice: https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/361620
• FEMA GO portal: https://go.fema.gov/
• FEMA state, tribe, and territory contacts: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/state-contacts
• FEMA regional office contact page: https://www.fema.gov/about/contact#search

BRIC is not the easiest kind of grant to win, but it can be one of the most practical if your government already has a serious mitigation need. If you can point to a real hazard, a real asset, and a real reduction in future loss, this is the kind of funding that can justify the effort.