National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
F. Floodplain Development Standards, Regulations and Codes
Overall Recommendations
F.1. FEMA should work with state and local
floodplain managers partners to achieve
comprehensive revisions to NFIP minimum
standards (e.g.. freeboard, no-rise floodway,
redefine coastal A zones, elevation certificates for
all; critical facilities protection; substantial
damage; better storm surge information for
coastal A Zones, limiting new structures in SFHA)
recognizing and taking into account adaptation
requirements for climate change and sea-level
rise, and seeking public and stakeholder
comments.
a) FEMA should issue a Call for Issues and
develop a status report much like they did in
2000 to obtain recommendations for changes
b) FEMA should create NFIP regulations
revisions workgroups for riverine, coastal,
arid regions, and/or east and west (of
Mississippi River) NFIP communities
c) Evaluate CRS activities to determine which
ones should be made minimum requirements
under the NFIP regulations
F.2. Promote NAI based development standards
in the base International Construction Codes
(ICC) codes as well as the ICC green codes.
For years FEMA has been telling ASFPM that they
have a package of 60.3 changes ready to go, but
it never gets prioritized for rulemaking. FEMA
has a lot of recommendations that they collected
beginning in 1998 and culminating in the 2000
call for issues status report. Since the call for
issues report came out in 2000 it is time to have
another process for FEMA to obtain input and to
inform any update of the NFIP regulations
F.3. Require participating states and their
communities to adopt the IBC and IRC without
exception (to the flood standards) or change in
order to participate in the NFIP and receive
disaster assistance.
More recently, ASFPM has begun to learn about
the ICC green code process and in 2014
participated in the code consensus process (along
with USEPA and FEMA)
In several states the provisions for determining
substantial damage/substantial improvements
has been omitted. This has resulted in 1-story, 2bed cabins in the V-zone being converted to
multi-story, $multi-million homes at-grade.
F.4. Support the development and
There is a philosophical debate on state adoption
of building codes – one is do you take an
incentive approach (which is usually appropriate
to promote innovative/new concepts) or do you
take the penalty approach (which is more
appropriate when the technology is there now
you need to do the right thing). The proposed
approach is the penalty approach – building
codes are not new and there is no reason that
they shouldn’t be adopted everywhere in the
country.
Post-Sandy, the Federal government did a very
NFPPR rec and explanation F
Page 1 of 7
draft 11-24-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
implementation of a robust national flood risk
management standard to guide all federal
investments both pre- and post-event.
F.5. Facilitate successful compliance with other
Federal laws (ESA, CWA) by addressing, as much
as possible, issues programmatically versus on a
permit-by-permit basis.
a) FEMA should work with states and
USFWS/NMFS to develop regional and/or
state compliance standards with ESA (i.e.
FEMA Region X model standards as
adopted in Puget Sound)
b) USEPA/USACE should provide clear
definitions of waters of the United States
for use by permitees.
proactive thing by establishing a flood risk
reduction standard to guide federal
reinvestment. However, prior to that, the only
standards that exist is EO 11988 and the guidance
on implementing of the EO. It was clear that the
reasonable standards post-Sandy weren’t an
undue hardship and it shows that such a standard
could be done nationwide in a pre- and postdisaster context.
From feedback from membership, it was clear
that a permit by permit approach or one that
required determinations at the local level for ESA
compliance was not preferred. At the same time
it is a core principle of law as a result of NEPA
that there be coordination and compliance with
environmental laws.
Changes/Updates to 44CFR (NFIP Minimum
Standards)
Of course you knew that this would be the focus
of the section, right?
F.6. To increase NFIP knowledge and compliance,
a minimum FEMA requirement for all NFIP
participating communities should be the local
floodplain managers or at least one permitting
staff to be a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM).
a) Revise the NFIP regulations to require
mandatory training for surveyors, engineers
or architects who are authorized by state law
to perform work (e.g., elevation certificates,
LOMCs, etc.) related to the NFIP, to obtain a
minimum number of continuing education
credits on a regular basis if not already a CFM
F.7. Freeboard. Revise NFIP regulations to
require a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard above
BFE for new construction in riverine areas and 3
feet of freeboard in coastal areas
Currently, 4 states either require a CFM or have a
CEC requirement for floodplain managers. And,
there are almost 9,000 CFMs in the country.
NFPPR rec and explanation F
There are a lot of ways to go on this, but consider
1) The relatively small incremental costs to
include up to 3 feet in elevation for structures
and 2) the affordability of flood insurance as the
program moves more accurate actuarial rating,
an aggressive freeboard is as much about saving
on future insurance premiums as it is a higher
safety factor. 2 feet of freeboard equals roughly
40-50% premium reduction, 3 feet freeboard is
60-70% premium reduction
Page 2 of 7
draft 11-24-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
F.8. Critical facilities.
a) Do not allow new critical facilities in the 500year floodplain unless it can be determined as
a necessary functionally dependent use.
b) Require existing or new (functionally
dependent) critical facilities to be elevated to
the 500-year flood elevation plus future
conditions, or the historical flood of record,
whichever is greater
c) Ensure access and operability of the critical
facility during the 500-year event or have a
viable continuity of operations plan where
this is not feasible. Ensure than an updated
COOP/operations plan is on file with the local
floodplain manager and is exercised on an
annual basis.
F.9. Floodways. Revise NFIP regulations to
require a no rise, no velocity increase, No
Adverse Impact on other properties floodway
(apply this no-rise to LOMCs and LOMRs also). No
development would be allowed to create a rise
without compensating those impacted or
mitigating the proposed effects.
a) No new or substantially damaged/improved
habitable structures should be allowed in the
floodway.
F.10. Subdivisions and large scale development.
a) For any subdivision or large scale
development where detailed flood data does
not already exist – require the applicant to
develop base flood elevations and floodway
data for such areas or any other area on the
development site where USGS blue line
streams exist that do not have an associated
mapped floodplain, show the boundaries on
the plat (where required)
b) Require the configuration the subdivision or
large scale development that for each lot, the
entire building envelope can be placed on
natural ground that is higher than the base
flood elevation
c) Reduce the 5 acre and 50 lot threshhold for
subdivisions and large scale development in
44 CFR 60.3 to 2 acres and 5 lots or a
subdivision that is defined in state law,
whichever is more stringent.
d) Require that all newly platted subdivisions
clearly identify all known flood hazards and
NFPPR rec and explanation F
The concept of critical facilities protection has
been around for over 3 decades but lot of critical
facilities get damaged from flooding at significant
taxpayer expense.
This policy is based squarely on fairness to other
land owners, land users and occupants, and on
public safety and protection and maintenance of
important and valuable floodplain functions.
We have got to end the current regulatory
process that buildings can be rebuilt in a
floodway if the “footprint” of the building is not
increased. Also, the more than 50% substantial
improvement must include all cumulative
improvements that have occurred over time.
This is the one area where the 60.3 standards of
the NFIP are a total failure and could be
improved significantly. It is also the area, that
with some work could also result in better
implementation of the unfulfilled intent of the
NFIP: To steer development away from
hazardous areas. This is most efficiently done
when land is considered for development, long
before a structure is ready to be built on the
property. By then it is too late.
Page 3 of 7
draft 11-24-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
related flood hazards (e.g. subsidence,
erosion, dam or levee failure, sink holes, etc)
e) Require improved stormwater management
standards for all new subdivisions and large
scale sites that address lower frequency
events (50 or 100-yr events vs. 2- 5-year
events) and address how that water will be
handled.
F.11. Revise the NFIP regulations to require
cumulative substantial damage/improvement
over the life of the structure.
F.12. Revise the NFIP regulations to require
buildings in coastal A Zones to be designed and
constructed to V zone standards to be more
resistant to coastal flood forces
F.13. Revise the NFIP regulations to require
floodproofed buildings have approved
maintenance and operations plans on file as part
of the permit requirements as well as being
updated annually.
F.14.b Require the use of the 95% confidence
level for all mapping and regulations of SFHAs,
and for level of protection calculations for all
flood risk reduction structures
F.15. Rewrite or issue guidance to simplify and
standardize compliance with 44 CFR 60.3(c)(10),
which requires consideration of cumulative
impacts of development on flood elevations in
areas where BFEs are established but no
floodways. Such an approach should allow for an
easy to implement measure in lieu of an
engineering study for every development activity
(i.e. a setback).
F.16. Require the conduct of periodic inspections
of new structures with enclosures below the
lowest floor or areas that could be easily
converted to enclosures. Required that
inspection records be maintained by the
community.
F.17. Revise the NFIP regulations to prohibit the
use of fill for triggering Letters of Map Change
NFPPR rec and explanation F
FEMA may consider a time frame such as a 10year period to track cumulative substantial
improvement (CSI). CRS credit could still be
provided for a lower threshold percentage that
50% value of the structure (LSI) or tracking CSI >
10 years, including for the life of the structure.
Need to make sure whatever appears in the
document is consistent across sections.
This idea has been around since the early 1980s
and had been championed by Les Bond.
Ultimately, this leads to a more conservative BFE
determination which by definition has a better
margin of safety built-in.
4 CFR 60.3(c)(10) has been one of the most
difficult standards to implement because it
basically requires an impact analysis for every
single development activity. This requirement
has cascading impacts including reluctance by
FEMA and the community to publish BFEs where
floodways have not been established. A more
easily implemented standard would facilitate
more widespread use of BFEs.
Conversion of areas below the BFE into living
spaces continues to be a problem. I think that
new insurance requirements as part of BW-12
and HFIAA require property owners to certify this
on an annual basis when their policies renew.
The use of fill should be considered an acceptable
elevation technique, but not justification for a
Page 4 of 7
draft 11-24-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
and create a new process outside of making
mapping changes to waive the mandatory
purchase of flood insurance requirement.
LOMR. In fact almost the only reason a LOMR-F
is sought is to remove the mandatory purchase
requirement.
Instead a more reasonable approach that could
be taken is that an applicant could apply for and
receive a letter of mandatory purchase review (or
refine the LODR). Here a professional engineer or
other qualified expert could evaluate the fill
against some standards such as: 3’ (or more)
above BFE, 2’ (or more) above 500-year,
contiguous to lands outside of the SFHA (so FEMA
quits approving islands in the middle of the
floodplain), adequate protection against erosion,
etc.
This review could be done by a certified
professional, accepted by a lender if they choose,
and be performed as a private transaction among
the owner/developer certification professional
and lender at no cost to FEMA or the
government.
F.18. Revise the NFIP minimum standards to
require LOMR-F standards for fill for all fill in the
floodplain
F.19 Revise the NFIP regulations to regulate
known erosion zones using appropriate
setbacks/buffers based on future conditions and
reflect the expected useful life of the building
constructed or substantially improved.
Minimum fill standards are only required when a
LOMR-F is being applied for. That includes
standards
More recent events in Vermont and Colorado
show erosion zones as a significant issues.
F.20. In residual risk areas (including those
downstream of dams) establish minimum land
use standards appropriate to ensuring losses are
minimized and/or risk is not further intensified.
At a minimum, apply Approximate A Zone
standards to these areas.
State dam safety programs are struggling with
the fact that downstream of dams, there is often
no regulation due to the dam being there and risk
intensifies which, in turn, requires costly
upgrades to the dam itself. One state, Wisconsin,
requires that easements be obtained in
downstream inundation areas. Some form of
land use standard should be required in such
areas.
The 2014 WRRDA requires the USACE to develop
voluntary national levee standards. NFPPR is
coming out at a very good time with the
opportunity to provide some policy commentary
as these standards are developed.
National Levee Safety Guidelines
NFPPR rec and explanation F
Page 5 of 7
draft 11-24-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
F.21. Congress and the Administration should
adopt a policy that the 500-year level of
protection is the minimal design standard for all
structural measures for the purposes of flood
insurance and other federal investment
F.22. The guidelines should include standards to
ensure the resiliency and integrity of the
structure in the case of overtopping or under
extreme conditions
F.23. The guidelines should include
recommended standards for managing residual
flood risk and the intensification of flood risk.
MISC
F.24. Revise NFIP regulations to prohibit septic
systems in A or V zones
CB: Not sure about this one either.
F.25. Develop and implement effective
monitoring, probation and suspension guidance
and standards for better NFIP compliance for all
NFIP participating communities
CB: Not sure if this recommendation is
appropriate for this section.
F.26. Revise the NFIP regulations to include
identification and management measures for
subsidence related to flood risk management.
F.27. Require V Zone construction standards in
coastal A Zones.
CB: Not sure about this one. The comment from
the field is that there are many areas of the
country where this is just not an issue.
CB: I don’t feel I have the expertise to adjudicate
this one.
OR
ASFPM may wish to go ahead with this, but
recognize the membership is not unanimous in
their endorsement. Some have expressed
concern about adding this mandate – either as a
redefinition of V Zone to include coastal A zones,
or as this proposed imposition of V Zone
standards in coastal A zones.
FEMA should develop actual model code
language for coastal A-Zones.
Would V-Zone standards result in
overengineering a building? Is that a bad thing
necessarily? For example, The wave loads / pile
engineering requirements are greater in areas
with 3+ waves and dune erosion than in areas
with 1.5 foot waves far up a tidal estuary away
from exposed shorelines. FEMA should develop
specific building standards for coastal A-Zones
rather than lumping all coastal A-Zones along
with V-Zones.
NFPPR rec and explanation F
Page 6 of 7
draft 11-24-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
F.28. Revise the NFIP regulations to require all
flood openings to comply with the design and
testing requirements for engineered opening.
Standard ventilation vents, when installed as
flood openings, seldom meet the net open area
criteria, and often do not allow the automatic
entry and exit of floodwaters.
NFPPR rec and explanation F
CB: Not sure about this one. On one hand we
have flood vent manufacturers that are big on
this standard – but is it a problem? From an
implementation standpoint, it is at least fairly
easy for a local FPA to make a determination on
the square inch to square foot ratio for flood vent
openings. And, there are some foundations and
communities just fine with openings that meet
such a standard without having to go the extra
step of engineered openings.
Page 7 of 7
draft 11-24-14