Ill. Association for Floodplain & Stormwater Management Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 -- Paul Osman, chair of the Floodplain Management Committee at the Illinois Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management, St. Charles, has issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency notice entitled "Request for Information on the 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 comment was written on Jan. 25, 2022, and posted on Jan. 26, 2022:

* * *

The Illinois Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management (IAFSM), Floodplain Management Committee appreciates the opportunity to provide the comments in response to FEMA (86 FR 59745) request for Information on the National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Standards for Land Management and Use, and an Assessment of the Program's Impact on Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats.

Respectfully,

Paul Osman, Chair

Floodplain Management Committee

Illinois Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management

* * *

CUMULATIVE SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE

Is "substantial improvement/substantial damage" the best way to address risk for non-conforming buildings?

Yes.

The substantial damage rules do not need amendment. Illinois has long been an advocate of strong substantial damage compliance. Virtually every community in Illinois has adopted the cumulative substantial damage language and the state strictly enforces substantial damage regulations.

However, substantial damage is enforced inconsistently across the nation. Some states/communities enforce substantial damage very well and it works fantastically to address non-conforming buildings. Other states/communities have chosen to ignore substantial damage compliance. Furthermore, FEMA has failed to take compliance actions against states or communities over failure to do substantial damage.

Years ago, a study was done on substantial damage. The primary finding was:

1) The communities doing good substantial damage enforcement have state support,

2) The states doing good substantial damage enforcement have FEMA Regional support, and

3) FEMA Regions doing strong substantial damage compliance have FEMA/HQ support.

FEMA Regions simply need to start uniformly enforcing substantial damage regulations. NFIP claims and repetitive loss data provide clear evidence on which communities are enforcing substantial damage and which are not. FEMA needs to get serious about enforcement of the existing substantial damage regulations before new regulations are considered.

Should FEMA consider the use of cumulative "substantial improvement" and/or "substantial damage" requirements over a given time period as a requirement?

YES. There is no reason cumulative substantial damage is not a requirement nationwide. In Illinois, cumulative has been in the state model ordinance for 25+ years and it is now considered SOP in nearly all communities.

Tracking substantial damage over a 10-year period is consistent with ICC regulations. Possible options:

* Mandatory in all communities and all structures.

* Mandatory in all communities with a history of flood claims.

* Mandatory in all communities with documented repetitive loss structures.

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?

Market Value/Assessed value is the best value to use. Market value is an easy-to-obtain figure in most states. Most County Assessors already have the market values easily available. It is easy for local officials to estimate market value based on assessed value. Using market value derived from the Tax Assessor is also fair and equitable. It is a defendable figure since building owners have been paying taxes on the assessed value. It also allows for easy appeals process where the building owner can obtain an appraisal if they are debating market value.

Changing to replacement cost would open the door for interpretation and would also delay the post-event damage assessment process while waiting for appraisals to be completed or depreciated values to be calculated. Very few floodplain managers are capable or confident to review and approve appraisals.

However, obtaining market value on some commercial structures (or tax-free properties such as churches) can be difficult. Better FEMA guidance on this topic is needed.

Should the regulations provide more detail on how the "substantial improvement" and/or "substantial damage" determinations should be made?

No further detail is required. There are now dozens of FEMA and state guidance documents on this topic. Again, the substantial damage/substantial improvement rules are fine. The failure lies with the inability or refusal by some states and/or communities to consistently enforce substantial damage. FEMA Regions should pursue compliance actions when the existing substantial damage rules are ignored.

FREEBOARD

Should FEMA update flood elevation requirements for SFHAs by setting higher freeboard levels?

Yes. Freeboard has become an accepted practice in most NFIP communities. Furthermore, freeboard is currently the only alternative to provide additional protection against climate change uncertainty and future risk.

If so, what should FEMA consider for the higher elevation levels for freeboard?

Minimum one foot freeboard. Possible options:

* 1 foot freeboard requirement for all buildings versus current "at or above BFE".

* 1 foot freeboard only for residential structures.

* 1 foot for buildings and 0.5 feet for accessory structures.

* Different freeboards based on zones, such as Zone AE or VE could be 2 feet, while an AH or AO would be 1 foot (or zero).

* Rather than freeboard, set reference level as the bottom of floor joists for all buildings? However, this would impact a lot of other program items (ECs, insurance, publications, etc.).

What data exists to support higher elevation levels for freeboard or methods that provide a more consistent level of protection?

FEMA, CRS, and other professional organizations have already done studies and developed publications and fact sheets which justify the loss reduction savings of freeboard. There is no need for further study. Reference can be made to existing studies.

As a side note, claims outside of the mapped floodplains often indicate the need for better mapping or higher regulatory standards (i.e. freeboard).

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?

As noted above, many studies and publications exist showing that the benefits of freeboard far outweigh the minimal cost of adding another foot or two or freeboard. These studies have already definitively answered this question.

Are there other technology advancements or building standards in design and construction that should be considered beyond freeboard levels?

ASCE 24 standards should be applied. There are several areas where ASCE 24 goes above-and-beyond NFIP minimum standards regarding freeboard.

Many states have adopted statewide buildings codes. Many still have not. FEMA should consider incentives (or distinctive) to encourage statewide adoption of building codes.

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)?

Again ASCE 24 addresses many of these other building protection criteria.

"Reasonably safe" criteria should be eliminated. Even the title "reasonably" is subjective and ill defined. Simply require that a BFE be obtained, and lowest floor elevation are enforced to the flood protection elevation.

CRITICAL FACILITIES

Should FEMA develop higher standards for these structures and facilities?

Yes.

If so, why?

By definition, critical facilities are critical to the health and welfare of the population and, if flooded, would create an added dimension to the disaster. Damage to these critical facilities can impact the delivery of vital services, can cause greater damage to other sectors of the community, or can put special populations at risk. Lessons learned after Hurricane Katrina and the fatalities in critical facilities should be reason enough to adopt critical facility protections standards.

Should FEMA consider differences between certain structures and facilities, such as use, occupancy, operational size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards?

FEMA needs to have a clear definition (and list of structures/uses) for "critical facilities". Certain critical facilities MUST be located outside of the mapped FP or if that is not possible, protected to the 500-year event along with ingress and egress (hospitals, nursing homes,etc.).

Option: Perhaps two categories of critical facilities? Those with populations at risk (nursing homes and hospitals) should not be located in high-risk areas. Other critical facilities and infrastructures (T-plants and water plants) should meet 500-year protection standards.

Should FEMA consider differences such as use, occupancy, operational size, or public and private operators in developing higher standards for structures and facilities performing critical actions?

See above.

MAPPING

How can the NFIP take a more risk-informed approach to defining flood hazard?

Give more states and communities greater autonomy in defining flood risk areas. Allow state and communities to map to higher standards (including future conditions mapping, climate change impacts, smaller drainage areas. or urban flood areas).

Maps should be locally owned and locally accepted. Look at mapping in DuPage County, Illinois or Downers Grove, IL. These communities have mapped to higher standards and these local maps are the regulatory tool. The FIRM is nothing more than a tool used by insurance agents.

Is there a need for FEMA's NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to be extended by establishing specific requirements for the areas immediately adjacent to the SFHA?

Yes, the minimum flood protection standards for new or substantially improved buildings should be applied if the lowest adjacent grade is within one foot, or the local freeboard depth, of the base flood elevation. As flood insurance has recognized that being adjacent to the SFHA has a higher risk, so should the floodplain regulations. Extend the floodplain out to the community's adopted freeboard.

In leveed areas, risks should be better identified as well.

There should be incentives for states and communities to adopt higher standards.

If so, what specific floodplain management standards could be successful to reduce losses and hardship?

It is impossible for FEMA to have uniform national standards for expanded areas. Creation of new risk zones would be nightmarish. That became true during the national symposia on urban flooding. FEMA needs to create incentives for state and communities to adopt higher standards. See the answer above.

What approaches would be effective for identifying these areas for communities to regulate?

See above.

Would new zones or overlays depicted with the SFHA via the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) serve this need?

Future conditions and climate change overlay would help communities and citizens visualize the risk. It is desperately needed. It may also help sell policies.

NOTE - This is easily done in coastal areas and many communities (Boston, Nofolk, Cambridge, etc.) have already done this. However, climate change impacts are not widely available on inland riverine floodplains. FEMA needs to help define the climate change risk on inland waterways.

Are there other tools that could be more effective?

Social media and augmented reality tools to show flood depths on certain structures. We now have the capability to click on a map and develop a street view image of a structure with flood depths overlayed. The tools have already been developed.

Should FEMA expand the SFHA generally from the 1 percent annual chance flood area to a 0.2 percent or a 0.1 percent area, and what decision rule should FEMA use to choose the appropriate area?

No. Mapping and regulating to the 1% annual flood is already a challenge for FEMA and many states. However, FEMA should NEVER discourage state or communities who want to map to higher standards.

Should the SFHA be expanded from a certain percent annual chance area to the flood of record (or whichever is higher)? Similarly, what standards or restrictions should be considered for high risk flood areas that are within the SFHA ( e.g., flash flood, mudslide, erosion prone, high velocity)?

Provide incentives for higher state and local standards. Some states will fight any suggestion of higher standards. At the same time, some states want to do more but are held back by FEMA's strict mapping guidelines. The answer is to incentivize the program and reward those states who are doing more.

Alternatively, should FEMA be aware of and/or use a different metric to identify flood risk?

No. Again...incentivize states/communities to do more. But FEMA rigid mapping standards should not discourage states from doing that.

REPETITIVE LOSS

What steps should FEMA take to reduce the disproportionate financial impact the multiple loss properties have on the NFIP?

RR 2.0 addresses this issue from an insurance standpoint. Rep Loss premiums will increase.

However, FEMA needs to start enforcing substantial damage standards. Seek compliance in states or communities which refuse to do substantial damage. There are 50 years of claims data which FEMA can use to target repetitive loss buildings where substantial damage has clearly not been done! Don't be afraid to seek compliance.

Should FEMA consider regulatory changes for properties that have repetitive losses?

Yes. Clearly. See the answer above. Rep Loss and Sub Dam are often compatible. Require cumulative sub dam in those communities with XX repetitive loss properties. Most importantly, track sub dam in those communities to make sure it is enforced. If sub dam is ignored, seek compliance actions!

Reference the "Two Strikes Bill" passed by Rep. Blumenaur back in 1995(?). In essence, FEMA will give you two "free" claims, however on claim #3, the property owner is given an offer to mitigate. If the owner refused higher premiums are placed on the property.

If so, what should the minimum NFIP floodplain management standards be for those properties?

The rules are there! Substantial damage! Just start enforcing them!

Should these properties be targeted for managed retreat?

Yes. Again, 50+ years of claims data should give FEMA a very good idea where to target efforts. Only a few states are responsible for the majority of flood losses (and claims). Within these states, even a fewer number of repetitive loss structures account for the overwhelming majority of claims. Many studies and recommendations have been done over the years. Just start to enforce the rules! If the building is cumulatively sub dam...seek compliance actions. Use 1316 as an enforcement tool if needed. If owner's refuse mitigation offers, increase premiums.

The tools are already in place. Use them.

How should the NFIP consider issues of equity when deciding how to address these properties?

The focus should remain on structures and land use rather than the occupants of those structures.

FEMA should enforce the floodplain rules fairly and equally for everyone. In addition, equal levels of outreach and assistance should be provided to everyone.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

What additional considerations should FEMA incorporate into the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to promote the protection and conservation of T&E species and their designated habitat?

Currently NFIP requires compliance with all other state and federal permits. T & E is already handled by other state and federal agencies. Adding yet another agency will only confuse the regulatory process.

In what ways could the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards be amended to more explicitly or comprehensively protect the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains to recognize their intrinsic value and benefits to floodplain management, T&E species, and the environment generally?

Open space uses only in the floodway (see state of Illinois FW regulations) How do current Federal environmental requirements and standards work within NFIP participating State, local, Tribal, and territories to identify and address impacts to T&E species and their habitats?

No comment

If there are State-specific environmental requirements and/or standards, how could changes to the NFIP support or interfere with the current State regulatory environment?

No comment

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES - CHANGES

What would the potential impact be on the NFIP participating communities?

Limiting construction in any identified riparian buffer zone; IAFSM supports the identification of riparian buffer zones. FEMA should coordinate these issues with Department of Agriculture/NRCS.

Requiring compensatory storage to have no net increase in projected flooding levels for all development in the SFHA; Illinois has had compensatory storage requirements in the floodway for decades. The rules have preserved floodplain storage and reduced flood losses. They are now accepted as SOP. While developed solely for flood protection purposes, the open space rules have provided environmental and endangered species benefits.

Requiring a more restrictive regulatory floodway standard; [20] Illinois has had open space requirements (no structures) in the floodway for decades. The rules have preserved floodplain storage and reduced flood losses. They are now accepted as SOP.

Requiring compensatory conservation credits/areas for all development in portions of the SFHA that provide natural and beneficial functions; No comment.

Requiring low impact development standards and/or permeable surfaces that may benefit T&E species and habitat; and/or No comment.

Prohibiting or limiting construction in any portion of the SFHA.

Illinois has had open space requirements (no structures) in the floodway for decades. The rules have preserved floodplain storage and reduced flood losses. They are now accepted as SOP. While developed solely for flood protection purposes, the open space rules have provided environmental and endangered species benefits.

How should the suggested changes listed above be prioritized to best benefit T&E species while also furthering the goals of the NFIP? Are there additional changes that should be considered and if so, what are they and what is their prioritization in comparison to the changes listed?

No comment

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES - ADVERSE IMPACTS

In what ways can NFIP participating communities demonstrate to FEMA that permitted floodplain development does not adversely impact T&E species and their habitats?

No comment

What changes are required to existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to allow NFIP participating communities to better demonstrate no adverse impact?

No comment

What ways, such as technical assistance or other means, could FEMA assist NFIP participating communities to help protect T&E species and their habitats?

No comment

COMPLIANCE

In what ways can FEMA strengthen the NFIP participation and increase enforcement of NFIP minimum floodplain management standards to build community resilience?

Streamline compliance actions against state/communities who are not currently enforcing the existing 60.3 regs.

Many states simply ignore compliance and FEMA Regions seem to do nothing about it.

Right now, states do the overwhelming number of community visits (over 90%). States do the follow up, document the violation, work on resolution, and, if needed, send the issue to FEMA for compliance actions. In most cases, the pursuit of compliance is lost at the regional level.

If the compliance actions are considered by the FEMA Region, rather than accept the state's documentation, FEMA must begin the process all over again (if they even do anything at all). It causes years of delay.

Getting NFIP compliance via FEMA is virtually impossible today.

Allow proactive states the authority to put communities on probation or suspension. Allow states to accept the political outfall from compliance.

How can FEMA better assist communities to mitigate flood loss and reduce risk?

Have more trust in state and local capabilities. Get out in the field more. Build strong partnerships and relationships with states and local officials. As a rule, state and local floodplain managers have a much better understanding of local needs.

Provide more outreach to communities, including grant writing seminars. Determine state and local needs in order to provide services equally. FEMA should help provide a baseline level of assistance.

In what ways could FEMA better support local floodplain managers to effectively enforce the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards?

Currently over 90% of CAVs and CACs in the nation are done by state staff. As noted above, FEMA regional staff should return to a focus on field work and building partnerships, friendships, and trust with local officials. Years ago, FEMA Regional staff were frequently seen in the field. They knew most local officials as friends and partners. They were known and respected. That is not true today. FEMA staff rarely go in the field and work with locals. As such, FEMA staff have lost much of their "real world" awareness and credibility. Those friendships and partnerships play a strong role in floodplain management.

HARDSHIPS AND VARIANCES

Are there any NFIP minimum floodplain management standards that currently cause hardship, conflict, confusion or create an economic or financial burden?

No

If so, what are they and how can they be modified to reduce the burdens while still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and reducing risk?

No comment

Some structures in a community may be exempted from the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards through a variance. Are there changes that can be made to variance requirements to help reduce the burdens while still meeting the objectives of mitigating flood loss and reducing risk?

No. The variance regulations in CFR 60.6 are very good. They are well written to limit the issuance of unjustified variance yet, at the same time, allow some local interpretation and flexibility.

Are there specific types of development or uses that should be considered for exemption from NFIP minimum floodplain management standards or should different standards apply?

No. The point of a variance is to ensure the development is unique and does not set a precedent. Having "exempted" categories of structures only hurts this process. There should be no national standard or categories for variances. The process itself should be unique to each community.

If so, what are they, why should specific types of development or uses be considered for exemption, and what different standards should be applicable?

See above.

DISCLOSURES

Should States and/or local governments be required to establish minimum flood risk reporting requirements for sellers and lessors as a condition for participation in the NFIP?

Yes. All states should be required to have uniform disclosure laws as a condition of joining the NFIP. See the recent Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report on state disclosure laws. It is an outstanding report with many excellent recommendations.

Should there be an affirmative obligation on the part of sellers and/or lessors of residential properties to disclose information about flood risk to prospective buyers or lessees?

Yes.

If so, what is the most effective way to require this disclosure?

State Real Estate Disclosure laws. Incentivize states.

Should the process be modeled on requirements for sellers to disclose details on environmental hazards, such as lead-based paint hazards?

No. This has nothing to do with natural hazard mitigation. This is an EPA issue. FEMA should focus on flooding and other natural hazards. Leave environmental protection and other issues up to the agencies most suited to address them.

What details should be included in the disclosure, such as knowledge of past floods and/or flood damage, a requirement to maintain flood insurance, knowledge the property is located in a SFHA at the time of offering, and the cost of existing flood insurance?

As noted above Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has recently done a very thorough study of state disclosure laws. FEMA should use that study to provide a model disclosure law for states to adopt.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Should FEMA base any NFIP minimum floodplain management standard changes on future risk and specifically on projections of climate change and associated impacts, such as sea level rise?

Yes. But it will be difficult. Climate change impacts are not well documented on inland river systems. Currently, freeboard is the most obvious protection against climate change impacts.

What equity considerations should be factored into such decisions if climate change disproportionately harms underserved and vulnerable areas?

Climate change impacts everyone and therefore everyone must be treated equally.

What other considerations should be factored into an analysis involving climate change?

Incentives states to adopt climate change requirements. Most states talk about climate change policies but very few are actually DOING anything.

Should the NFIP better distinguish NFIP minimum floodplain management standards between riverine and coastal communities?

Yes. Of course. Climate change impact are well documented in coastal floodplains. Impacts are sorely lacking in inland waterway systems.

Should the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards incorporate pluvial (surface/urban) flooding concerns?

No. This point has been clearly made during recent urban flood symposiums. It would be impossible for FEMA to map urban flood zones much less keep urban flood maps updated and accurate. Stormwater management and urban flooding are constantly evolving. Communities are constantly taking actions to address stormwater issues. As such, identification of stormwater areas should be a local community risk identification effort. This has clearly been shown as a recommendation in recent federal and state urban flood studies.

Let's be honest here.....FEMA struggles to keep accurate/updated mapping on major river systems. Is FEMA really capable of mapping and regulating pluvial flooding and updating maps every time a community replaces a culvert, improves a storm sewer, or builds a new stormwater detention? The answer is obvious.

Are there specific measures and standards that should be taken to ensure structures can withstand the greater intensity, duration, frequency and geographic distribution of flooding events?

Have a minimum 1-to-1 compensatory storage requirement for fill in the fringe. Encourage 1 - to 1.5 compensatory storage.

Map floodways based on a 0.1 ft. or 0.5 ft. rise across the country (rather than the FEMA 1.0' floodway. Option: limit this only to urban areas?

Map floodways based on conveyance, storage, and velocity. Rather than simply conveyance!

Deny fill in the floodway. Period.

Allow only "appropriate (open space) uses" in the floodway. No buildings!

If so, what are they and how can those measures and standards ensure structures and communities can readily adapt and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change?

See above.

60.3 "STAIRSTEPS"

Are there current regulatory provisions that create duplication, overlap, complexity, or inconsistent requirements or unintended inequities with other FEMA or other Federal programs?

Eliminate the tiered or stairstep organization of 60.3 (a - e). The "a" and "b" regulations specifically are poorly defined and subjective. What does "reasonably safe" even mean?

Get rid of the unnumbered A zone elevation standards in 60.3 (a and b). Require BFEs and low floor construction standards in all unnumbered A zones prior to permit issuance! Period.

Require a no rise FW analysis done in all communities (not just those with mapped floodways).

Have better guidance and uniformity on the development of "best available data" for construction. Better yet eliminate "best available data" and require BFEs to be developed and certified regardless of the risk zone. Occasionally a 'best available" BFE will be used for permitting and the same BFE is then denied during the LOMA review process.

Are there current regulatory provisions that present recurring difficulties for local and State officials implementing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards and if so, what improvements should be made?

Better definition and guidance on water supply systems. 60.3 currently says they must be "designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters". FEMA has no guidance on how to do this. Nor do water supply experts.

Better definition and guidance on sanitary sewage systems. 60.3 currently says they must be "designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters". FEMA has no guidance on how to do this. Nor do sewage experts.

Eliminate the threshold for subdivision protection (50 lots or 5 acres). Just say all development must be flood protected. No exemption for small developments.

Get rid of the 36" rule on Manufactured homes. BFE in existing mfg. home parks which has incurred substantial damage as the result of a flood"? Nobody knows or tracks this. Many communities have adopted 36" regulations in their ordinances which do not follow this requirement.

Require non-conversion agreements for all elevated structures so they cannot be converted later

NEW TECHNOLOGY

Are there technological advances, building standards, or standards of practice that could help FEMA to modify, streamline, or improve existing NFIP minimum floodplain management standards? If so, what are they and how can FEMA leverage those technologies and standards to achieve the agency's statutory and regulatory objectives?

No comment

STATE ROLES

What successful mitigation policies, building design standards, building construction standards, T&E species protections, and/or other floodplain management approaches to mitigate flood loss and reduce risk have been taken by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments?

There is a growing chasm between "good states" and "bad states". After 40+ years of FEMA CAP programs to build state capabilities, many states now have programs that far exceed FEMA minimum requirements. In these states, CAP is but a small component of the overall state FP program supporting NFIP goals. Just to name a few state higher standards:

* Strict state floodplain or floodway regulations,

* Restrictive state floodway delineation

* State floodway (or floodplain) permit requirements,

* State enforcement of cumulative substantial damage,

* Statewide freeboard requirements,

* Large state-funded FPM staff (most with CFMs),

* State funded mapping programs,

* State review and approval of map changes,

* State funded mitigation programs,

* State designed, funded, and constructed flood control programs,

* State funded stream gages and floodplain studies,

* State funded outreach and risk awareness programs.

FPM should now be incentivized, and effective states should be rewarded. States which have taken ownership of FPM should NOT be treated the same as states who rely entirely on FEMA to do their FPM.

50 years of NFIP claims data will provide ample evidence to clearly show which states or communities are effectively reducing flood loss exposure.

In what ways do the current NFIP minimum floodplain management standards present barriers or opportunities to the successful implementation of those approaches?

In some situations, FEMA has placed roadblocks to state and local ownership of FPM (see above comment). True risk reduction will only work if it is locally accepted. This occurs in communities which go above-and-beyond and do the work themselves. They don't rely on FEMA. Conversely, those communities which remain dependent on FEMA to solve their problems continue to have spiraling losses.

What capabilities and capacity impacts should FEMA address as it considers changes to the NFIP minimum floodplain management standards and to strengthen NFIP protection of T&E species and their habitats?

No comment - T & E issues were addressed above.

"DEVELOPMENT" DEFINTION

Is information available on the NFIP's influence on floodplain development?

Scores of studies over the years have answered this question.

FEMA should now gather information on state programs which have proven effective. Specifically, those programs which have resulted in loss reduction. Data on building compliance, reduction of rep loss structures, decreases in flood claims, and fewer disaster declarations are all metrics which FEMA could use to document the effectiveness of state and local programs.

States should no longer be treated equally. Some states have built and funded large and effective state programs. Other states have no in-state program and continue to rely entirely on FEMA.

If so, provide or identify any data or materials identifying the NFIP's influence.

No comment

How can FEMA measure the NFIP's effect on floodplain development?

Use claims data to identify this. Is should be relatively obvious after 53 years of the NFIP. See comments above.

Are there specific NFIP regulations, policies and/or development standards that currently influence State, local, Tribal, and/or territorial governments in their development decisions that may have a positive or negative impact on T&E species and their habitats?

No comment. T&E is addressed above.

If so, what are they and how do they influence development decisions that impact T&E species and their habitats?

No comment

Are there changes to those regulations, policies and/or standards that, if made, would have a positive impact on T&E species and their habitats?

No comment

If so, what are those changes?

No comment

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES - FILL

Should FEMA reconsider its mapping practices, including the issuance of Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-Fs)?

Yes. LOMR-F was a political decision. There should not be a LOMR-F. Very few LOMR-Fs have ever been certified to meet the "reasonably safe" criteria.

Should the placement of fill material, defined as material used to raise a portion of a property to or above the Base Flood Elevation within the SFHA, be prohibited by NFIP minimum floodplain management standards?

Yes but only within the floodway.

What would the impact of this change be on T&E species and NFIP participating communities?

No comment

MITIGATION PLANNING

How should FEMA consider integrating mitigation planning with other Federal, State, or local mitigation planning such as community planning, economic planning, coastal zone planning, and other types of planning activities to improve the overall effectiveness of mitigation planning and floodplain management activities?

No. Mitigation planning is difficult for FEMA to obtain now. It is also expensive for local communities to do mitigation planning. It is rarely (never?) paid for with local funds.

Going through the mitigation planning process is a good exercise for community risk awareness but, outside of the HM committee, very few citizens know anything about the plan.

Let's be honest...the mitigation plan is not being used by most communities. It is a plan which sits on a shelf for 5 years until it is next required by FEMA. There is no accountability or follow up on the plan. Actions in the plan are rarely enacted due to mitigation funding issues.

It seems more burdensome to add additional activities when the current plan is already underutilized.

Are there planning best practices, processes, or data that could better inform planning decision-making and the development and implementation of floodplain management standards?

See above.

OTHER COMMENTS

Although it will be difficult politically, require minimal building standards and outreach in shaded X and B zones (behind levee or high hazard dams)? Perhaps just require and evacuation or outreach effort in these residual risk areas?

Better ties between NFIP claims and regs. For example, figure out a simple way to re-rate or deny coverage on structure which are violations. This could be failure to do substantial damage, creating habitable space in "once-flow-thru" lower levels, or a variety of other compliance issues. RR 2.0 no longer has implications for low floor violations.

Consider changing the definition of repetitive loss. Raise the NFIP claim threshold for repetitive loss and severe repetitive (currently $1,000). Some structures listed as RL have very minimal contents claims (in a flooded lower area which is already compliant). For example, increase the structural claim limit to $10,000 and $30,000 and match the definitions between the NFIP and FMA.

State ownership and autonomy in the administration of the NFIP. Specifically, community probation and suspension. Some states are more-than-willing to take the political heat for compliance actions. Especially if the action is well documented! At one time, there were 5 communities in the entire nation on probation or suspension for compliance. All five were in IL and it was a major multi-year effort to make it happen!! Today, there is one additional community in MS. Knowing the lack of compliance in many states and communities, that is unacceptable! Option may be allowing NFIP autonomy only in those states with a proven state capability!

Remove LOMA - Out as shown as Zone A floodplains are unstudied and we know the topography used for much of the country's floodplain maps was not detailed enough to warrant it's use for a LOMA determination.

* * *

The notice 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