Flood Mitigation Industry Association Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, May 16 -- Roderick Scott, board chair of the Flood Mitigation Industry Association, Mandeville, Louisiana, has issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's notice entitled "Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities". The comment was written on May 11, 2020, and posted on May 13, 2020:

* * *

On behalf of the Flood Mitigation Industry Association, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program developed under Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery and Reform Act.

The FMIA represents the flood mitigation industry. This industry is made up of professional designers, architects and structural engineers, flood proofing product manufacturers and their sales distribution networks, general contractors and the construction sector trades that are involved with the installation of products as well as the construction involved with elevations. The FMIA supports FEMA's pre- and post-disaster mitigation programs. Both are important elements in the nation's overall approach to reduce long-term risk to hazards and build community resilience. BRIC served to amend the Stafford Act's Section 203 on pre-disaster hazard mitigation (42 USC 5133) in the context of the existing law. The FMIA is pleased to see that the draft guidance recognizes existing provisions of law that were not changed, such as a more feasible non-federal cost share for small and impoverished communities which was a concern reflected in prior BRIC initial comments from 2019. Overall, it appears the policy guidance closely follows the statutory changes that were made and provides a solid framework for state and communities to follow. Below are specific comments which we hope are helpful to FEMA as it works to release its final guidance.

Non-structural flood hazard mitigation projects of elevation and dry flood proofing(certified) are proven methods of reducing flood risk. Over the last decade more and more of the HMA/FMA and HMGP post-disaster funds have been focusing on drainage projects before and after flooding. This has reduced the numbers of elevations and dry flood proofing projects for buildings. Additionally there has been no requirement that drainage infrastructure projects actually get the pre-FIRM buildings compliant with the elevation requirements of the 1% - 100 yr flood zone and the mandatory flood insurance requirements for mortgaged properties.

Building flooding is very different from drainage infrastructure and drainage systems. BRIC funded projects for drainage and infrastructure in the future must address properties that are in the SHFA, the mitigation activity must either remove the structure from the SHFA or "elevate the structure or wet/dry flood proof the building above either the BFE or the higher standard of the local community, whichever is more restrictive", otherwise we have spent precious federal dollars on projects that keep flood risk high for the pre-FIRM buildings within the project area. A related issue is that the flood maps do not take into account the changing climate increasing intensity and frequency of rain/flooding events. Flood hazard mitigated buildings, elevation and dry flood proofed, reduce flood risk and flood insurance premiums, stabilize property values and preserve vital property taxes as well as create a lot of good construction sector jobs in all of the trades. We are now in year 8 of the removal of NFIP subsidized policy premium rates on all pre-FIRM buildings in flood zones. Now that the rates are beginning to cause financial discomfort and even lower property values we must re-double our efforts to fund the flood hazard mitigation of these estimated several million pre-FIRM buildings.

One other issue that needs to be addressed is the long time it takes from local application to the notice to proceed for flood mitigation projects. We must all work together to reduce the long wait time.

The following are more detailed comments"

1. Activity Eligibility Criteria We are considerably concerned by the overall program description that does not include any apparent prioritization of traditional, non-structural flood reduction measures such as structure elevation, acquisition, flood-proofing or relocation. Today we are in the middle of a massive re-adjustment to actuarial from subsidized policy premium rates on millions of pre-FIRM high flood risk buildings. This has increased the need for funding for flood mitigation elevation for homes, especially on low to moderate income family homes. In some ways, the proposed policy can be interpreted that a strong BRIC priority is the funding of large infrastructure projects; the following Policy draft statements are worrisome:

"The BRIC program is designed to promote a national culture of preparedness and public safety through encouraging investments to protect our communities and infrastructure and through strengthening national mitigation capabilities to foster resilience. The BRIC program seeks to fund effective and innovative projects that will reduce risk and increase resilience and serve as a catalyst to encourage the whole community to invest in and adopt policies related to mitigation." (under Purpose)

"Promote partnerships and enable high-impact investments to reduce risk from natural hazards with a focus on critical services and facilities, large-scale public infrastructure, public safety, public health, and communities." (under Principles)

2. Activity Eligibility Criteria, item #1B- The draft Policy states: "They must not duplicate activities that another federal agency or program has more specific authority to conduct." In the footnote for this statement is the explanation: "A federal agency cannot augment its purpose with activities it is not authorized to perform, or have its authority augmented by another federal agency's activities."

It appears that the intent of this is to prevent a federal agency from expanding its purpose and authority. This is good. Our concern, however, is that this statement does not clearly address the matter of funding. FEMA should make a clear statement about the use of the funds, with the intention that other funded federal agencies cannot use the BRIC funds for their projects.

This leads to the over-arching concern that BRIC funding will be available for large and costly infrastructure projects that can already be funded under other federal programs without negatively impacting BRIC's traditional non-structural mitigation. Infrastructure for local stormwater systems for example are not the issue, as long as those funded projects actually take the pre-FIRM buildings out of the 1% flood zone, but huge levee systems or dams should never be funded by BRIC. If this happens, there will be less funding for the traditional non-structural projects which are highly effective, faster to implement, and many provide lasting risk reduction.

3. Activity eligibility criteria The criteria should support Planned/Managed Retreat projects. From annual funding priorities expressed in past NOFOs, and the implied support of large infrastructure projects (see items # 4 and 6 above) there is clearly some desire by FEMA for big, bold infrastructure projects. ASFPM recommends pairing this desire with a true gap that exists - support for managed retreat projects. These are among the most complicated of all mitigation projects because various federal and state agencies are involved to support planning/relocating infrastructure, homes, and businesses. This is why very few community relocations have actually happened. Yet, as we have found and will increasingly find in the future, retreating from some areas is truly the best long-term option. FMIA recommends that BRIC guidance include a section on supporting these types of projects (FEMA could use its recent experience helping Newtok, Alaska) or the historic relocations of XXXX and XXX Missouri. Planning and project implementation work should be allowed under BRIC as long as tangible results are demonstrated with each proposed application.

Traditional FEMA flood mitigation projects have demonstrated a 7-to-1 benefit cost value - far above the average structural water resources approach, and the need for such high value mitigation is far, far from satisfied. There are now over 100,000 repetitive flood loss claim designated buildings and tens of thousands of Severe Repetitive Loss Claim designated buildings in flood zones with rapidly rising NFIP rates that need flood mitigation. FMIA sincerely hopes that through BRIC we not overlook the importance of the traditional mitigation actions, elevation and dry flood proofing non-residential buildings, that have been the foundation of our nation's efforts for the past 30+ years. We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional comments and hope that the BRIC program can move forward as expeditiously as possible.

Respectfully Submitted,

Roderick Scott, CFM

Board Chair

Flood Mitigation Industry Association

www.floodmitigationindustry.org

* * *

The notice can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FEMA-2019-0018-0001

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