Norfolk, Va., Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 -- The city of Norfolk, Virginia, has issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency notice entitled "Request for Information: National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System". The comment was posted on Sept. 22, 2021:

* * *

RFI on the NFIP's Community Rating System - Comments from the City of Norfolk:

(1) What are the strengths of the current CRS program? What components of the program are currently working well and why?

The CRS Program offers a variety of activities to achieve the goals of the program. It encourages communities to adopt higher standards for flood protection and detailed methods to convey flood risk to local populations. Activity 310 works well because it ensures that communities regulate floodplain development properly. Activity 430 works very well because it provides elected leaders with a broader constituency of support for adopting higher levels of protection. Activity 530 works well because it encourages communities to pursue mitigation solutions for repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss structure.

(2) What are the challenges with the current CRS program that need to be addressed and why? How can the CRS program be modified, expanded, or streamlined to better address or resolve these challenges?

Activity 540 (Drainage System Maintenance) requires a community to receive credit for Channel Debris Removal in order to unlock credit opportunities within that area. For coastal communities this is too restrictive to be deemed a prerequisite for all other points within the Activity.

Furthermore, activities that require a large commitment such as Storage Basin Maintenance (SBM), are difficult to achieve. Urban communities may have thousands of smaller stormwater BMPs than other communities which may have larger regional BMPs. It isn't feasible for inspections to occur annually in dense urban communities. However, a community may conduct inspections once every other year for smaller BMPs. The opportunity to receive points for this activity should include an impact adjustment based on frequency as well.

All CRS scoresheets from the CRS Specialist's Score Guide should be made available for communities on a CRS web portal. The portal should provide an opportunity to "self-score" with an upload feature for each CRS Element and Sub-element. There should be a final indicator beside each Element/Sub-element that indicates whether the self-score has been "verified" or "disapproved with comment" by the Community's specialist. This allows the community to keep a running total of their scores, and it should streamline the Verification and Modification process.

Communities should be able to have open dialogue regarding the credit assigned to activities during the verification review. Participating communities are permitted to challenge the assigned points total, however, it's not promoted nor encouraged because the scoresheets are not fully transparent until the end.

The PPI point max is too low given all of the bonus multiplier points that are available. If there needs to be a cap on points for Activity 332.c, then the cap should allow the bonus points to be transferred to the specific multiplier Element (STK, FRP, 370-FIA, 370-TA, 370-CPI, 370-TA & CDR, etc.).

(3) While the CRS program is technically available to all compliant NFIP communities, is access to the CRS program equitable for all communities? If not, what changes to the CRS program could make it more equitable for all communities? How could the CRS program provide better outreach to disadvantaged communities to encourage participation? How could the CRS program provide better outreach to households in disadvantaged communities to encourage participation in the NFIP?

Access is not equitable as vulnerable pockets in the community's SFHA face greater hurdles. Offer more incentives to communities that focus on flood risk reduction strategies and outreach in areas with high social vulnerability. Use the CDC's Social Vulnerability Index maps to identify these areas. This could include a score multiplier similar to PPI scoring. There should be far more emphasis on protecting those socially vulnerable populations and providing incentives to address those areas will likely be more effective.

(4) How could the CRS program better promote and/or incentivize improved reduction of future conditions and risks such as climate change, sea-level rise, urban flooding, and future development?

The future conditions assumptions pertaining to Sea Level Rise (SLR) differs amongst federal agencies (NOAA, USACE, etc.), and the estimates have been altered over the past 10 years. This makes it difficult for Planners to adjust local regulations to meet the CRS minimum requirements for the Class 4 prerequisite under Watershed Master Planning, especially if local regulations are also attempting to align with other federal agency requirements, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Localities would be more confident to pursue a Class 4 designation or higher if the Class 4 prerequisite allowed for communities to select an Intermediate SLR scenario from any federal agency, and furthermore stated that the community would not be required to alter their future conditions assumptions to maintain WMP credit anytime that a federal agency alters their SLR curve, so long as the community maintains/updates their WMP plan.

Many communities, such as Norfolk, have invested substantial resources and more than 10 years into the supporting research and H&H modeling to develop a Watershed Master Plan. The CRS program needs to encourage coastal communities to adopt Watershed Master Plans by instilling confidence in this prerequisite requirement, since loss of WMP credit would result in a community being downgraded to Class 5 without the potential to make up lost points elsewhere.

Norfolk supports the Coastal Virginia CRS Workgroup recommendation to provide baseline credit for communities using future scenarios to develop a Watershed Master Plan, and to subsequently satisfy the Class 4 prerequisite. Norfolk would support an impact adjustment approach being added to WMP to reduce the number of WMP points down to the baseline credit for plans that no longer meet the Intermediate future conditions scenario when federal agencies alter their SLR curves, provided that it does not result in a loss of the Class 4 prerequisite.

(5) How could the CRS program better address the mitigation of repetitive loss/severe repetitive lossproperties and how could FEMA further leverage the CRS program to achieve mitigation of repetitive loss/severe repetitive loss properties?

Do not eliminate points for RL/SRL properties that have been demolished and rebuilt conforming (rather than only providing such points for conversions to protected open space). Many communities utilize progressive tactics, (property maintenance code, derelict structures statues, delinquent tax auctions, etc.) to bring about demolition and reconstruction of RL/SRL properties. Currently, Section 531.b(5)(e) of the 2017 CRS Manual states that this is permissible for Flood Protection credit under TU1, however, CRS has stated its intent to remove this option in the next CRS Manual. Such action would suppress our community's efforts to mitigate these RL/SRL in disrepair.

(6) How can the CRS program be modified, expanded, or streamlined to best incentivize participation by communities and flood insurance policyholders to become more resilient and lower their vulnerability to flood risk?

If the Federal Government provided enhanced grant funding for federal disaster assistance for CRS Communities of a certain class rating, the incentive for communities to join and increase their score would increase. For example a Class 5 community would be awarded a 90/10 cost share, a Class 4 community would be awarded a 95/5 cost share, and a Class 3 or better would receive 100% grant funding

In the annual flood policy declaration page, there should be an item explaining what the community has done to achieve the discount from the CRS Program. Highlight the major activities the community has accomplished. Inform the policyholder of activities the community could participate in to increase points therefore potentially increasing the premium discount.

(7) How can the CRS program better incentivize floodplain management, risk management, and/or risk reduction efforts for communities through CRS discounts, grants, trainings, technical assistance or other means? Which efforts are most critical for the CRS program to support?

CRS should recognize that participating communities are unique in their needs for floodplain management and risk management. One drawback of the program is that there is no incentive for innovation if it does not fall within the activities defined by CRS. The third goal of CRS is to foster comprehensive floodplain management, but there is no latitude for activities that do not score under the current manual. CRS should recognize that opportunities to reduce flood risk are not always so easily defined.

There should be an Element to provide points for communities that activity submit qualified Hazard Mitigation Assistance or other risk reduction grants. Points multipliers could be added for grants to mitigate repetitive loss structures.

(8) What existing sources of data can FEMA leverage to better assist communities to assess, communicate, and drive the reduction of current and future flood risk? Can FEMA leverage new technologies to modify or streamline the CRS program? If so, what are they and how can FEMA use new technologies to achieve the statutory objectives of the program?

Provide more access to flood depth data (depth grids) and LiDAR data so localities can better understand the risks of their community. Provide communities with a list of all known minus-rated properties and provide a CRS Element for communities to assess and identify causes of minus-ratings (i.e. structure doesn't have compliant flood vents, finished floor elevation is located below the revised BFE, etc.)

(9) The CRS program provides credits for flood risk reduction activities. Are there flood risk reduction activities that are not currently given credit within the CRS program that should be? If so, what are they and why? Are there flood risk reduction activities that are currently given excessive credit within the CRS program than they should be given? If so, what are they and why? Should the CRS program provide a list of optional risk reduction activities for communities to choose from or a list of required risk reduction activities, and why?

Risk reduction activities that should offer CRS credit should be expanded to include mitigation activities such as conversions of closed foundations to an open foundations (not limited to areas within the VE or Coastal A zone), modifications to meet FEMA's free-of-obstruction guidance from FEMA TB-5, elevating building utilities (with multiplier points for structures having a finished floor that also meets the community's minimum freeboard (provided that the utilities were elevated to meet such minimum freeboard), and points for using fill to convert a basement into a vented crawl space (with multiplier points if the home's finished floor is compliant with the community's minimum freeboard). Interest in this activity will inevitably increase due to Risk Rating 2.0's associated mitigation credits. Creating this connection between CRS and the RR2.0 mitigation credits provides an opportunity for communities to develop new Outreach Projects to encourage these new mitigation activities.

(10) What successful approaches have been taken by State, local, Tribal, and Territorial governments that the CRS program could leverage to better support community participation in the CRS program? In what ways could the CRS program better support States, Tribes, Territories and Regions, and flood control and water management districts to improve community participation in the program? What innovative changes could the CRS program make to be simpler for communities to join and maintain participation?

Developing State or Regional CRS Coordinator (similar to State NFIP Coordinators) would promote the creation and dissemination of resources to encourage more communities to join and expand efforts in the CRS program.

The most innovative change that could be made to the CRS program would be establish the self-scoring portal based on the CRS scoresheets that is further described in our response to question 2 above.

(11) How could the CRS program provide better outreach to disadvantaged communities to encourage participation? How could the CRS program provide better outreach to households in disadvantaged communities to encourage participation in the NFIP?

As mentioned in Question 2, CRS should not require communities to acquire points in certain activities in order to open up further opportunities to receive credit. Participating in the CRS Program requires a locality to provide a major commitment. This usually translates into staff time as well as cost to implement these activities. The current point credit system can discourage economically disadvantaged communities from participating due to the lack of resources.

(12) In what ways could the CRS program facilitate collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries to support a community's ability to reduce flood risk? How could the CRS program be modified, expanded, or streamlined to allow for multi-jurisdictional collaboration efforts to receive credit under the CRS program?

Developing a framework for regional councils of governments and MPO's to fund Regional CRS Coordinator positions (similar to State NFIP Coordinators).

(13) What opportunities exist for the CRS program to better integrate with other entities and/or programs? For example, in what specific ways could the CRS program better work and integrate with State, local, Tribal, and Territorial programs, including but not limited to, floodplain management, emergency services, land use planning and building code administration capital improvement, transportation, redevelopment, pre- and post-disaster recovery, climate adaptation, hazard mitigation planning, watershed management, and/or wetlands, riparian, or environmental management programs? In what specific ways could the CRS program better work and integrate with Federal disaster assistance programs or Federal mitigation programs?

Similar to how non-federal cost-share commitments are reduced for federal disaster assistance and HMA cost-share assistance provided to States and communities/regions that adopt enhanced hazard mitigation plans, these federal assistance and grant programs should also include provisions for enhanced cost-share scenarios for communities based on the community's CRS Class rating.

* * *

The notice can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2021-0021-0001

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