Denver, Colo. Issues Reply to RFI from FEMA

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 -- The City and County of Denver, Colorado, has issued a public comment in response to the Federal Emergency Management Agency request for information (Docket FEMA-2021-0024) entitled "National Flood Insurance Program's Floodplain Management Standards for Land Management and Use, and an Assessment of the Program's Impact on Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats". The reply was written on Jan. 27, 2022, and posted on Jan. 28, 2022:

* * *

Here are excerpts:

To: The Honorable Deanne Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C St., SW, Washington, DC 20472

RE: Docket ID FEMA-2021-0024: Request for Information on National Flood Insurance Program Standards and How the NFIP Can Better Address Threatened and Endangered Species

Dear Administrator Criswell,

The City and County of Denver Floodplain Management Group (CCD-FMG) is pleased to provide this response for Request for Information (RFI) stakeholder input on our NFIP management standards and it's impacts on T&E species and their habitats as they relate specifically to our Community. The following responses are based on our experiences and challenges with suggestions on improvements to the NFIP management standards that would help us to reduce flood risk in our Community.

(1) FEMA has addressed risk to existing or non-conforming construction (buildings not constructed to current minimum floodplain management standards) in the regulations through the "substantial improvement/substantial damage" requirements. These requirements have largely been tied to the definitions of "substantial improvement" and "substantial damage." Is "substantial improvement/substantial damage" the best way to address risk for non-conforming buildings? If so, should FEMA consider the use of cumulative "substantial improvement" and/or "substantial damage" requirements over a given time period as a

requirement? Should "substantial improvement" and/or "substantial damage" use an assessment cost value or a replacement cost value, or are there other valuation methods that may be more appropriate? Should the regulations provide more detail on how the "substantial improvement" and/or "substantial damage" determinations should be made?

CCD-FMG counts building improvements cumulatively within 1 year of a prior passed Final Floodplain Inspection. To reduce flood risk for a greater percentage of building improvement projects, it may be helpful to have a trigger for requiring a cost estimate to bring a building into compliance. For example, building improvements costing 25% of a building value are required to also calculate the cost for bringing the building into compliance with the Community Floodplain Regulations, and said improvements shall be implemented if 10% or less of the project cost. CCD-FMG feels that cumulative SI/SD over longer periods of time would be an administrative burden and very difficult to administer across property owners. We have experienced situations, even in the 1 year we define for cumulative, where properties change hands and the buyer isn't aware of SI restrictions and is then stuck with a property for up to a year without being able to make any improvements without triggering SI. This issue would be exasperated by longer cumulative period. In lieu of punishing buyers for obscure rules they aren't aware of, strengthening property flood disclosure nationally and providing insurance claim data to the public would be a better mechanism to communicate flood risk and to inform buyers of regulatory implications, including the SI rule, when purchasing a property in the regulatory floodplain.

CCD-FMG believes that standard building maintenance such as roof repairs, HVAC system replacement, etc. should be excluded from SI cost calculations. SI considerations for these routine maintenance activities, which are way below the SI noise level, is an administrative burden and takes up staff resources that could be better used elsewhere. The SI rule disincentivizes maintenance activities, which creates other safety hazards. Administrative burden could be eased, and safer buildings could be achieved, with a proper definition of standard maintenance activities that could be exempted from SI calcs. In addition, consideration should be made to exempting costs associated with making modest flood safety improvements, even if the entire building isn't being brought into compliance. The property owner should not be punished in terms of triggering SI, or counting cumulatively towards 50% threshold, for improvements intended to improve flood safety and/or reduce property damage. For example, why would we want to disincentivize elevation of machinery and equipment, protecting low openings, or installing a sump pump? This does not seem to be the intent of the SI rule; yet is regulated as such. The NFIP needs to recognize that some flood protection is better than no flood protection and therefore needs to remove disincentives to, or better yet actually incentivize, these activities.

(2) The elevation of structures above expected base flood levels, called "freeboard," is an important precept of floodplain management. "Freeboard" is usually expressed in feet above a base flood elevation for purposes of floodplain management. NFIP communities must require new, "substantially improved," or "substantially damaged" structures in the SFHA to be elevated to the height of the one percent annual chance flood level, also referred to as the Base Flood Elevation or BFE. Some States and communities require newly constructed buildings to be built higher than the base flood elevation to further reduce the risk of flood damage with freeboard requirements set to a specific height to provide the additional margin of risk reduction above the BFE. The NFIP has strongly encouraged but not required higher elevation standards, such as those included in the I-Codes and ASCE 24. Should FEMA update flood elevation requirements for SFHAs by setting higher freeboard levels? If so, what should FEMA consider for the higher elevation levels for freeboard? What data exists to support higher elevation levels for freeboard or methods that provide a more consistent level of protection? Will freeboard elevation generally raise the market value of properties in SFHAs and if so how would the increase in market value compare to the cost of elevation? Are there other technology advancements or building standards in design and construction that should be considered beyond freeboard levels? If so, do they address other floodplain management criteria (e.g., reasonably safe from flooding; adequately anchored; methods and practices that minimize or are resistant to flood damage; water load values; wind load values; substantially impermeable)?

CCD-FMG effectively administers 18" freeboard so we believe a minimum National freeboard standard of no less than 1 foot above the BFE is appropriate. In addition, we believe that lateral extents of this freeboard should be mapped for. A freeboard standard coupled with lateral extents would help Communities manage development in areas of expected shallow flooding. One of the greatest risks to life and property occurs when shallow flooding enters a residential basement. Having a National freeboard standard with lateral extents would help reduce this hazard in the face of increased development in fringe areas, hydrologic and hydraulic model uncertainty, unforeseen flood conditions, events larger than 1% AC, and climate change. The lateral extents concept is also more equitable because it doesn't ignore property just outside the SFHA. We believe that FEMA should be responsible for developing technical standards and guidelines for mapping the lateral extents and requiring this information on FEMA map products so the methodology is consistent, regulations can be applied uniformly, and is legally defensible. National level mapping support on lateral extents should be considered, as Community level development and implementation of lateral extents would not likely achieve the desired results.

View full comment at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FEMA-2021-0024-0374/attachment_1.pdf

* * *

The request for information can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2021-0024-0001

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact MYRON STRUCK, editor, [email protected], Springfield, Virginia; 703/304-1897; https://targetednews.com