Pa. Association of Floodplain Managers Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 -- The Pennsylvania Association of Floodplain Managers, Philadelphia, 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 Oct. 25, 2021:

* * *

1. CRS Current Strengths? Working program components?

Currently, the CRS Program is the only Federal comprehensive Floodplain Management (FPM) Program available to communities that is organized and incentivized basis which in and of itself is a strength. Another of its strengths is that there are options or choices under each point category for a community to select an appropriate mitigation measure as part of its overall CRS Program.

2. CRS challenges and modifications?

Better marketing practices are needed to encourage communities to participate in CRS. One of the bigger challenges facing CRS program participation centers around the name used "Community Rating System". The name is intimidating and/or a turnoff to local governments/ communities. What community wants to be rated by the Federal government in the first place? Who wants to be a part of a program that sounds bureaucratic, anyway?

Granted, the name CRS does explain what the program partially is or does. However, it does not reflect the higher purpose of the program. A more appropriate name would be "Comprehensive Resilience System (CRS)", "Resilience Enhancement Program (REP)" or "Sustainability Enhancement Program (SEP)" or something similar. This type of title change captures the full essence of the overall objective of the CRS program and gives a higher purpose to the program. Consequently, a name or tile change should be more attractive and/or appealing to communities.

It must be noted that it has been extremely difficult in some FEMA Regions to move forward with the process of including/adding (new) CRS communities. The State Coordinating Agency struggles with CRS in assisting new communities in gaining CRS approval. Unfortunately, the program has become a cumbersome situation for municipalities as well wanting to become CRS communities. There appears to be a disconnect within FEMA itself both at the regional level and Headquarters. FEMA does not believe most communities deserve to be in CRS. Yet, it has come across that way from FEMA.

Participation in CRS is not supposed to be a reward for perfection, but for effective programming. FEMA, however, expects perfection in program administration. Because of this attitude one state decided not to even take applications. In some other cases at the local level, it has taken several years and multiple back and forth between FEMA Region and the communities who still have not gotten FEMA CRS approval. So, where's the cut off for FEMA perfection. Positive FEMA review is critical for CRS approval. But unfortunately, those reviews are not constructive enough to provide sufficient guidance on gaining CRS approval. In short, there is a need for a clear set of rules that are consistent and are applied across all local CRS applicants.

3. Social Justice, Better Outreach?

FEMA should collaborate with the Community Action Partnership or similar organizations at the national level in determining how to better work with relevant groups in addressing social justice issues in the CRS Program. https://communityactionpartnership.com This group has a broad network of relevant contacts at the National, State, County and local levels that can help FEMA establish a better Social Justice outreach program that will begin to adequately address local economic and social needs.

4. Better Incentive for Improved Reduction of Future Conditions?

While we acknowledge that Risk Rating 2.0 has made strides in the betterment of incentives, allowing the same incentive for structures in and outside of the SFHA is necessary. In addition, the introduction of a 50% to 60% reduction in insurance rates in CRS communities for application of flood loss reduction activities involving future condition standards should be considered. Further, we would urge FEMA to add CRS credits or points for the physical removal of low head dams where such removal has no effect on 100 Yr. / 1% flood heights. Such activity does reduce the threat of human drowning potential and improve actual conditions for successful natural habitat restoration which should also be incentivized via CRS.

5. Repetitive Loss Improvements.?

No comment.

6. CRS Modifications for Improved Incentives for Community Participation, etc.?

See item 4.

7. Better Incentives for Floodplain Management, Risk Management/Reduction Efforts?

No comment.

8. Existing Sources of Data that FEMA can Leverage?

We suggest the use of soils data produced by USDA/NRCS that can have special value in rural and undeveloped suburban communities as a supplement to FEMA County Flood Insurance Studies. Based on soil type, development or redevelopment can be guided away from soil types identified as unsuitable for construction, excavation, etc. This data is especially useful where FEMA has not identified flood hazard/flood-prone areas and/or in small watersheds as well as natural stormwater ponding and poor drainage areas. The use of soils data will provide some additional mapping basis for identifying flood-prone areas and specifying drainage requirements of Section 60.3(a) and 60.3(b). https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

New US Census Data should help identify low income and minority population areas by census track. County Planning Commissions and/or local communities can provide similar information based on information in comprehensive land use plans. County Community Action Agencies funded by Federal, and State Governments via the Community Services

Block Grant Program can provide Social Justice and other related information on low income and minority populations.

https://communityactionpartnership.com/public-policy/

9. Other Flood Loss Activities.

Optional Risk Reduction Activities versus Required Actions.

No comment.

10. a) Successful CRS Approaches by State Communities, Flood Control and Water Management Districts. b.) Innovative Participation Changes.

a.) The Town of Bloomsburg and Wilkes-Barre City are two Pennsylvania Communities who have successfully maintained their CRS eligibility over the past years at higher classifications.

b.) Many communities need a simpler way to join and participate in the CRS Program. One way would be for FEMA to establish an interim or provisional program that would allow communities to join CRS as a Class 9 with minimal amount of paperwork including a formal commitment or requirement to upgrade their status to a full Class 9 or 8, etc. within a two/three-year period. This streamlined process also would include a local officially adopted resolution committing the community to take this action over the specified period to complete the regular CRS requirements. This approach would be like the Emergency Program approach FEMA used in the early days of the National Flood Insurance Program when little or no official flood mapping was available.

After approval the community would work to complete the full requirements of a formal Class 9 or 8 etc. category. FEMA should also provide for optional Risk Reduction Activities to provide greater flexibility for communities who want to enter CRS under an emergency or provisional CRS program. FEMA should also provide a special CAP-SSSEE set aside grant program to provide technical assistance to communities in the Interim or Emergency CRS Program phase.

11 a.) Better Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities to Encourage Participation.

b.) Multi-jurisdictional collaborative efforts for CRS Credits?

a) FEMA should include or require Outreach Initiatives to Disadvantage Community populations in their respective Hazard Mitigation plans. State Coordinating Agencies and SHMO Agencies should also include Disadvantage Outreach Initiative Guidance in their CAPSSSE grants, etc.

b.) FEMA should review and further evaluate various State laws on multi-jurisdictional empowerment powers for carrying out local and county cooperative action potential.

In Pennsylvania, we recommend that it review and approve the use of the Pennsylvania Local Government Cooperation Act as an acceptable legal basis for allowing a group of Pennsylvania communities /Councils of Governments (COGs) to join and participate in the CRS Program. (https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/53/00.023..HTM) PAFPM COMMENTS ON FEMA 2021 REQUEST FOR CRS COMMENTS

Many Pennsylvania communities collaboratively perform local government functions that are also required under CRS through this state law. These functions include joint code enforcement, land use planning, public safety activity such as fire and police protection, public sewer, and water services. In the past, FEMA has not fully recognized this law and/or COGs and municipal authorities as an acceptable approach for participation in the NFIP or CRS.

11. b.) Multi-jurisdictional collaborative efforts for CRS Credits? (Continued) Also, the PA Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), as amended, provides another legal opportunity for multi-jurisdictional empowerment through the County government. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/1968/0/0247..HTM Specifically, the County Planning Commission can offer zoning and subdivision/land development ordinance, etc. regulation and administration coverage in municipalities located within its boundaries. This law could conceivably reduce the number of NFIP municipalities that FEMA must deal with in PA if it would work closer with the Commonwealth in finding a compromise interpretation of law. Conversely, such action could also increase CRS participation within the state of Pennsylvania.

12. a.) Specific ways CRS can better relate with Local County Programs.

b.) CRS Disaster Assistance/Mitigation Programs?

a.) FEMA should further identify and document those communities where their CRS involvement has worked well. We think FEMA should contract with the American Planning Association (APA)or other National Organizations (ASFPM)to identify those communities that have model CRS Programs and or a comprehensive floodplain management program. Planning elements such as zoning, capital improvements budgeting, subdivision/land development ordinances are key components for implementing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the APA to identify ways CRS could work better with other government agencies or entities.

b.) FEMA should establish CRS participation as a requirement for receipt of disaster recovery funds. However, CRS eligibility could be accomplished gradually over a three-year period coinciding with the completion of their disaster recovery projects. Similar approaches have been used by other Federal Agencies in the past in conjunction with other community development programs. Utilizing the streamlined approach mentioned in Item 10.b) above would reduce some of the hardship for communities created because of being in a disaster recovery operation phase.

* * *

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