National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
A. Flood Mapping
7-7-14 draft
A.1. Depict failure zones associated with dams, levees, diversions, and reservoirs on maps; where
mapped mandate regulatory action, insurance and mitigation. When zone D is used to depict
“Undetermined hazard” associated with Structural project, require flood insurance Also see G.1.
A.2. Account for geologic/geomorphic hazards on flood maps, including fluvial erosion /channel
migration zones. Channel migration zones have key relevance to endangered and threatened species
habitat requirements, e.g. salmonids, as well as building safety.
A.3. Include all coastal hazards (erosion, subsidence, sea level rise, storm surge) on flood maps, using a
150 years-into-the-future standard. These should be based on current medium to high GHC scenarios.
Current estimate of average U.S. residential structure life is 150 years. Also see L.3
A.4. Include special hazards in producing FISs and on FIRMs (stream mitigation zones, ice jams, flash
floods, closed lake basins, debris flow, alluvial fan etc.) Also see M.1, N.1, N.2
A.5. Map and designate properties with repeat flood damage claims and adjacent areas with repeat
flooding histories (including flooding from stormwater) as floodplain, for regulation and insurance Effort
should be made to identify and map not only specific “repetitive loss” properties, but also other adjacent
areas with documented, repeat-flooding histories, whether or not they technically meet NFIP repetitive
loss or severe repetitive loss definitions. NFIP should institute a surcharge for every claim or so, similar to
auto insurance. Repetitive loss properties can serve as key locations for investigations on “repetitive loss
areas.” Also see G.10
A.6. Allow non-regulatory products or other simplified processes to be used as a better way to assign
flood risk for insurance purposes, either through separate map or other means, then use flood maps for
regulation/planning/management, provided that non-regulatory products are clearly identified to
prevent the appearance of multiple flood risks and to prevent cherry-picking of risks.
A.7.(a) Fully fund and implement National Flood Mapping Program (NFMP) as directed by Congress in
the 2012 NFIP Reform
A.7. (b) Fund map maintenance and regular map updating as continuation of the National Flood
Mapping Program and Risk Map
A.8. Continue to fund flood mapping & maintenance outside of NFIP policy and fee budget to the full
authorized BW-12 levels ($499 million/year).
A.9. Utilize and implement the appropriate recommendations of the new Technical Mapping Advisory
Council; Consider establishing TMAC as a long-term or permanent council
A.10. Revise the NFIP requirements to require or provide incentives (e.g. CRS) for communities to
establish GIS layers for subsidence (as part of the 100 year standard)
Page 1
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
A.11. (a) Produce coastal bathymetric maps and integrate with coastal topographic maps to produce
maps depicting storm surge, increased water surface elevations, reach of flooding in coastal A Zones—
Multi agency effort. Also see L.17
A.11 (b) Map and change the V-Zone standard from 3’ breaking wave to 1.5 foot waves in 1-percent
chance event as supported by FEMA research and analysis.. Depict V-Zones and Coastal A Zones based
on future conditions and best available science and data; require NFIP regulations and insurance to
reflect this standard
A.12. (a) Delegate authority and funding for mapping of all coastal and riverine hazards on NFIP flood
maps to qualified states under the Cooperating Technical Partners program.
A.12. (b) Require CTP delegated states to develop and maintain an archival system for all flood map
models for data stewardship and storage. Encourage and provide funding incentives all states to archive
flood map data.
A.12.(c) As an alternative to the current mapping program, and for sustainability of the program, FEMA
could focus its attention to completing and maintaining a fully digital national flood hazard layer (rather
than trying to maintain flood “maps”) and leave the updating, maintenance, and stewardship/
management of topographic data, base maps, political boundaries, or other data layers of interest to
other federal and state agencies. A “map”, suitable for each purpose (such as flood insurance, floodplain
development management, zoning, etc.), can then be assembled by each local state or entity and
printed on demand; incentives will be needed for this to happen
A.13. Increase use of CTPs for delineating all coastal and riverine hazards on maps
A.14. Delegate authority to review LOMRs to qualified states and state designated local authorities,
with local review/sign off as needed Also see S.4
A.15. Produce all flood maps in geospatial data format & allow all such data as a substitute for
traditional paper products ; require LOMRs to be in the same geospatial format, including updated
databases
A.16. Map floodplains to the upstream source Also see G.2, T.8
A 17. Make past flood maps readily available in digital, electronically-transmittable format
A 18.(a) Map floodways based on no cumulative flood rise and no adverse impact on other properties
A.18. (b) In performing flood studies where the levee is assumed to contain the 1% chance flood, use the
top of the levee or landward toe of the levee as the landward edge of the floodway.
A.19. Map floodways based upon a combination of depth and velocity of the water to show the true
hazard and risk to property owners and communities; include as a standard NFIP flood map product
Page 2
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
A.20. Map floodways using unsteady flow models to account for the loss of storage. Rely on FEMA
guidance using this approach and realize the complexities of effecting this approach.
A.21. LiMWAs should not be optional and should be used on all coastal maps.
A.22. V-Zones should be mapped on all the Great Lakes, as well as the special hazard of ice.
A.23. An informational layer should be provided to all communities downstream of a dam showing the
SFHA assuming the dam is removed.
A.24. Produce future conditions mapping that includes all scientific and planned projections of sea level
rise, increase in riverine rainfall, watershed changes, etc.
A. 25. Revise and update flood flow calculation guidance in bulletin 17 B to reflect the
recommendations to the Subcommittee on Hydrology to produce updated Guidelines for Determining
Flood Flow Frequency titled Bulletin 17 C.
B. Hydrology & Hydraulics
B.1. (a) Account for flood depths and velocities in setting zones and insurance rates; new charts or tools
should be provided to insurance agents to streamline rate selection, relates to A.19
B.1. (b) Provide flood depth grids as part of the FEMA flood map series and require communities to
adopt those maps for administering the NFIP requirements in their community
B.2. Automate data inputs and update regression equations using updated geospatial land cover and
gage data.
B.3. Use Doppler rainfall data more effectively in flood flow predictions
B.4. (a) Incorporate future-conditions hydrology and cumulative impacts into flood risk determinations
under the NFIP Flood insurance studies should identify assumptions for hydrologic estimates, especially
for future conditions; adjust planning and regulation to avoid transferring the responsibility from those
that cause the problem to those that suffer the consequences.
B.4.(b) Ensure that the cumulative impacts of encroachments be incorporated into all flood risk
determinations such that there is no resulting increase in flood elevations without associated mitigation
actions
B.5. Fund and issue updates of National Weather Service regional rainfall frequency curves
B.6. (a) Develop engineering models that are properly calibrated to historic flood events to reduce the
uncertainty associated with the model results before such models can be deemed validated. .
Page 3
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
B.6. (b) FEMA needs to establish guidelines and quality assurance protocols for evaluating the unsteady
and two-dimensional models, reporting requirements appropriate for these modeling techniques, and
for the development and review of floodway boundaries derived from such models.
B.7. Ensure that engineering models are open source, public, user-friendly, and widely accepted
B.8. Calculations of flood flow frequencies should be determined based upon a 95% confidence level to
reduce the uncertainty in associated flows used for flood risk determinations.
B.9 Use the 1% chance flood plus future conditions and freeboard for mapping and regulation
C. Stormwater Management
C.1. Emphasize integration of water quality and quantity (flood loss reduction) programs and foster
holistic and no adverse impact stormwater approaches at state and local levels
C.2. Consider both flooding and water quality in all FEMA HMGP and Environmental Protection Agency
Section 319 demonstration projects
C.3. Require critical facilities to consider and quantify both mapped flood risk, but also the potential for
increased risk due to land use changes and climate change by quantifying watershed and stormwater
runoff that affects the site
C.4. Encourage/incentivize (CRS and other) rainfall and runoff infiltration, low impact development and
green infrastructure techniques to reduce and manage flood flows and runoff, water quantity and water
quality.
C.5 Apply and expand NFIP Community Rating concept to allow EPA and FEMA to credit community
actions to reduce stormwater flooding risk and to improve water quality and green infrastructure.
Credits could come in form of advantageous sliding cost-shares for grants, disaster assistance, or other
incentives.
C.6. Encourage or require watershed management that prevents an increase in flood flows by new
development via control of not only peak flows, but also the volume of runoff.
C.7. Wetlands and other storage areas outside of the SFHA should be preserved to prevent downstream
increases in flood frequency and heights.
C.8. EPA, as part of MS4 permits should require the control of the peak and volume of runoff to greater
than the 2-10 year events to prevent the erosion of stream channels, pollution, and damage to adjoining
structures which creates more pollution.
C.9. Consider requiring building setbacks/buffers from all streams and coasts with that area preserved in
their natural state to reduce flood and ecosystem damages and preserve water quality.
Page 4
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
C.10. EPA guidelines for watershed management plans should include the impacts of flooding and the
impacts of development and the hydrologic regime and flood risk.
C.11. As a prerequisite for Class 4 CRS communities must require all new development and
redevelopment to fully use LID techniques to mitigate their impact.
D. Water Quality
See C. Stormwater Management
E. Data & Technology
E.1. Provide reliable funds for stream gaging and identify additional funding sources for streamflow data
gathering and analysis. Establish an intergovernmental commission for recommendations to meet these
goals. With increasing evidence of changes in climate and rainfall patterns, the enhancement and
strengthening of the nation’s stream gaging network and stream flow data collection is becoming critical
for flood risk management and long-range emergency and watershed planning and standard setting.
Also phrased: “Provide funds for stream gaging. Fully fund the NSIP and provide frequent updates of
stated regression equations.”
Also phrased: “Provide federal and over funds for stream gages.”
E.2. Fund and update and maintain list of critical index stream gages (NSIP) nationwide—federal funding
of this network is essential.
E.3. Develop mechanisms by which NWS/local warning systems can supplement stream gage data
E.4. Place all data collected post-disaster (including NFIP claims information) in public domain and easily
accessible to states, localities, researchers & stakeholders; in real time Comment: the claim of “privacy”
of much NFIP individual and geographic area data and the consequent continual state of public
confusion over costs and trends for 45 years has substantially retarded necessary research and analysis
to assist the improvement of many aspects of the NFIP and disaster program. A major policy shift is
needed in this area.
E.5. Develop open-source tools for post-flood damage estimation
E.6. (a)Collect nationwide data on number of flood-prone structures, dams & levees, population at risk.
New law (BW-12) requires such data as well as other critical data to be both collected and incorporated
by FEMA into future flood insurance rate maps. TMAC can suggest means of collecting and incorporating
data, however, FEMA is required to carry out these requirements. Also see I.11
Page 5
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
E.6. (b) The federal interagency group Mit FLG (this acronym is not spelled consistently throughout this
document), in consultation with state and local partners should discuss a continuing process and key
roles in how to collect, aggregate, analyze and operationalize the collection and use of such data in the
NFIP, flood damage reduction, disaster assistance, and other federal construction, development,
planning, funding and technical assistance programs.
E.6.(c) Nationwide LiDAR is needed for the entire nation with flood mapping being one of the major uses
of that topographic data since updated, accurate topo data is needed with adequate modeling in order
to produce accurate flood maps. Funding sources can be a combination of different federal sources,
along with state and local sources in order to reduce duplication of effort
E.7. (a) Generate complete list of number and location of residual risk floodplain buildings and
infrastructure and levee-protected buildings and infrastructure nationwide by making community
participation in NFIP, CRS, disaster assistance, HMGP grants, approval of local hazard mitigation plans,
and the Corps of Engineers’ Rehabilitation and Inspection program, (P.L. 84-99) contingent on
community’s supplying and periodically updating that information
E. 7. (b) Collection of the data on residual risk structures and infrastructure could be eligible for cost
share funding from HUD, FEMA and other funding sources.
E.8. Establish nationwide database on disaster costs and the benefit/cost ratios of mitigation, organized
by stream reach or shoreline as designated by the National Hydrography Dataset or State or Regional
equivalent thereof. Track relative disaster costs and responsibilities by levels of government and sectors.
This data is needed because Federal costs for disasters are skyrocketing on a path which rivals the longterm unbudgeted imbalance in the U.S. social security system – potentially in trillions of dollars; average
federal share has risen recent decades from modest percentages to 70 percent in recent major disasters.
Data needed to better document costs, trends and values of mitigation. See Q 19
E.9. Determine the true cost of disasters by developing a mechanism to account for all the direct and
indirect costs of a flood disaster. Increasingly, it appears these cost may be 10 times greater then
current estimates.
F. Development Standards, Regulations and Codes
F.1. (a) FEMA should work with state and local floodplain managers partners to achieve comprehensive
revisions to NFIP regulations (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) recognizing and taking into account adaptation requirements for climate change and
sea-level rise, and seeking public and stakeholder comments.
F.1. (b) Promote NAI based development standards in the base International Construction Codes (ICC)
codes as well as the ICC green codes
Page 6
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
F.2. Evaluate CRS activities to determine which ones should be made minimum requirements under the
NFIP regulations: This could be billed as an immediate step toward F.1
F.3. Require mitigation measures (elevation, zoning, insurance) in failure zones associated with dams,
levees, diversions, and reservoirs to reduce residual risk and taxpayer costs
F.4. Revise NFIP regulations to require 2 or more- feet of freeboard above BFE for new construction in
riverine areas and 3-4 feet of freeboard in coastal areas
F.4.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 control structures
F.4.c Require the use of the medium credible projection of sea level rise by 2100 for all mapping and
regulation (also for the expenditure of any and all federal funds, construction and technical assistance.
F.5. (a) Revise NFIP regulations to require a no rise, 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. (See F.7, F.8 and F.9) make clear that 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.
F.5. (b) No habitable structures should be allowed in the floodway
F.6. Revise the NFIP regulations to define critical facilities, prohibit them in regulated floodplain unless
no alternative exists and they are elevated to above 500-year level with freeboard and estimated future
conditions incorporated, require 500-year protection with access and operability during the 500 year
event, and set other standards as needed Also see J.1–7
F.7. Rewrite or issue guidance to simplify and standardize compliance with 44 CFR 60.3(c)(10), which
requires consideration of cumulative impacts on flood elevations to ensure the cumulative impacts of
encroachments into the mapped SFHA cause no increase in any frequency flood elevations, velocities,
erosion or other adverse impacts unless all impacts are agreed to by all impacted property owners
through mitigation actions or purchase of easements. This process should allow use of verified nonpublished BFEs.
F.8. Revise the NFIP regulations to require initial floodplain mapping that matches topography for all
USGS blue line streams in subdivisions and large scale developments, and that the map be based on a
hydraulic model that includes a floodway analysis or other approved cumulative impact of
encroachments analysis
F.9. (a) Revise the NFIP regulations to lower the threshold of “large” developments required to submit
100-year flood data (and recommended floodway analyses) Explore alignment of thresholds with
requirements of the CWA.
Page 7
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
F.9. (b) Require that all new subdivision lots created have enough natural buildable ground above the
BFE to contain the entire building envelope during platting.
F.9.(c ) Require that when a community has adopted subdivision regulations, that the regulations be
revised to contain required platting and development standards if not already required by a state.
F.9. (d) Require improved stormwater management standards for all new subdivisions that address
lower frequency events (50 or 100-yr events vs. 2- 5-year events)..
F.9. (e) F.25. Require that all newly platted subdivisions clearly identify all known flood hazards and
related natural hazards (e.g. subsidence, erosion, dam or levee failure, sink holes, etc).
F.10 (a)Develop and implement effective monitoring, probation and suspension guidance and standards
for better NFIP compliance for all NFIP participating communities.
F.10 (b) For all new structures in coastal zones, or everywhere, the community must be allowed to
inspect properties at will to ensure compliance, and especially at any transfer of the property.
F.11. Revise the NFIP regulations to include identification and management measures for subsidence
related to flood risk management. Also see N.2
F.12. Revise NFIP regulations to prohibit unmitigated fill anywhere in the SFHA, or at a minimum revise
NFIP regulations to prohibit fill for elevation in coastal A zones See F.13
F.13. Revise NFIP regulations to prohibit septic systems in V zones
F.14. Revise the NFIP regulations to prohibit or heavily restrict the use of fill for triggering Letters of Map
Change and changes in flood insurance rating. (duplicate)F.15. Revise the NFIP regulations to require
local ordinance to require local floodplain administrator to define they are responsible to determine
substantial damage.
F.16. Revise the NFIP regulations to require cumulative substantial improvement. see R.8
F.17. 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.18: Evaluate CRS program to recognize more mitigation actions as eligible activities and to increase
points for activities that result in the greatest mitigation benefits.
F.18 Revise the NFIP regulations to map and regulate an erosion zone with rolling building setbacks and
require all communities to adopt that. 44 CFR 60.1(b). The regulatory standard should incorporate likely
future conditions and reflect the expected useful life of building constructed or substantially improved
F.19 Revise the LOMC requirements to require an Environmental Assessment in all instances to ensure
endangered species are not impacted.
Page 8
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
F. 20 Establish NFIP regulations to ensure Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance with development,
LOMC’s and addresses other structures with impacts on threatened and endangered species and critical
habitat.
F.21. Promote NAI based development standards in the international green construction code.
F.22. Require V Zone construction standards in coastal A Zones.
G. Flood Insurance
G.1. Require flood insurance in 100- and 500- year floodplains, storm surge zones, erosion zones, and
residual risk zones associated with structural projects (preferred risk rates for latter)
G.2. Discontinue practice of waiving the flood insurance requirement after issuance of LOMRs, LOMR-Fs
and LOMAs; apply risk-based rates F.5, K.15, T.8
G.3. Ensure the movement to actuarial rates over time continues for non-primary residences as per BW12 –
G.4. Gradually eliminate grandfathered rates over time by having a surcharge of x percentage after each
claim of more than some percent of value or by charging actuarial rates once a damage claim is paid
G.5. Movement of insurance rates toward actuarial must be balanced with increased tools, assistance
and funding for mitigation to help homeowners and small businesses with affordability of insurance.
This could include means tested vouchers, credit for mitigation or others means, but must be done
carefully to ensure it does not increase the moral hazard.
G.6. Create more stratification in insurance rates to reflect the variety in risk within flood zones; this
must be linked to providing tools to insurance agents to simply how they can correctly rate a policy. The
current NFIP approach that results in rates for some shallow flooded structure to be the same is deeper
flooded structures does not encourage mitigation or development in lower risk areas.
G.7. Apply mandatory purchase requirement to non-federally regulated mortgages or require that
lender to pay the claim
G.8. Ensure compliance with NFIP mandatory purchase requirements; at every-year anniversary of
mortgage, and upon transfer; ensure penalties are applied for violations.
G.9. Revise NFIP regulations to make zone changes effective immediately, without regard to lender
notification or changes in status of mortgage
G.10. Map any structure outside the SFHA for which two or more damage claims are paid as a
floodplain structure so that insurance is required and regulations apply; also increase the rates 20% with
each claim Also see A.5
Page 9
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
G.11. Implement law that allows FEMA Director to impose use of ICC when beneficial to NFIP Fund
G.12. Promulgate insurance rules to financially neutralize repetitive loss properties through actuarial
rates, deductibles, or by actuarial rates if mitigation is not done after any offer; incentives can be a part
of this effort
G.13. Set up a procedure by which the NFIP compliance of a structure is automatically verified after a
claim is paid for substantial damage or even a second or third claim, this should be used for eligibility in
CRS and NFIP? (CAV)
G.14. Continually Evaluate CRS to ensure that activities that merit rate reductions are reducing losses
G.15. (a) Establish clear and rigorous audit procedures for CRS communities compliance, and do this on
a set schedule, especially post-disaster, but also for auditing on a regular basis. CRS compliance is
essential and must carry penalties for non-compliance. All policyholders pay for CRS credits whether in
CRS community or not, at a cost of over $200 million per year.
G.15 (b). Require EC’s for all new floodplain permits and require that the community keep copies.
G.15 (c). Examine potential for community based insurance, multi-year policies purchased by and for the
community at-large and based on actual risk.
G.15 (d). FEMA disaster program could offer or work with the reinsurance industry to offer communities
insurance for their infrastructure and disaster assistance in general. It should be required of all
communities and could be subject to the CRS discount. It would cover roads, bridges, waterlines, sewer,
stormwater, power, telecommunication, treatment plants, debris removal, - basically everything now
covered by PA.
G.16. Continue marketing campaigns for both purchase and renewal of flood insurance policies; target
marketing to homeowners without mortgages
G.17. FEMA should significantly expand the agent training provided by NFIP Training Contractor, both
the number of courses and topics (i.e., legislation changes, ICC, mitigation options, non-reg products (is
this clear?) like depth grids, Changes Since Last FIRM. This should also support agent training that
incorporate floodplain management, flood mapping familiarity , and mitigation, and to require
continuing education for license renewal by end of 2015
G.18. Use outreach, monitoring, and other measures to enforce the NFIP requirement to identify and
insure state- owned and locally-owned flood-prone structures, with required pay back to the federal
treasury and NFIP for non-compliance
G.19. Improve working relationship among floodplain managers and insurance industry, with FEMA and
the professional organizations assisting in fostering this relationship
G.20 Modify the NFIP to require mapping and management of and to provide erosion/mudslide
coverage only where those hazards are mapped and appropriately regulated, possibly via a surcharge
Page
10
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
G. 21 Establish additional levels of risk zones, or add a surcharge for flood insurance for floodways
(analogous to V Zone ratings) for maps and flood insurance
G.22 Establish higher rates for structures in high velocity or erosion prone riverine areas.
G.23 Review the existing policy base, and continually perform Quality Assurance, to ensure structures
are shown to be within the appropriate community to prevent policy holders from receiving an
inappropriate CRS discount.
G.24. Establish a requirement that by 2020 all owners of insured structures must obtain Elevation
Certificates and place on file with local governments and with FEMA. FEMA, working with local
governments, provides incentives to implement. Provide CRS credits for communities who do this for all
flood-prone structures; also allow use of other cost share funding for this
G.25. Ensure actual cost of flood insurance is communicated clearly and directly to all policy holders
each year, regardless of discounts or subsidies
G.26. Require signoff of all claims over 25% or similar threshold by community floodplain administrator
as part of claims processing for substantial damage determination and mitigation
G.27. Allow communities direct access to claims data as they are being processed for use in regulatory
processes
H. Mitigation
H.1. Create incentives to encourage incorporation of no adverse impact in mitigation plans, state/local
regulations, and land use planning.
H.2. Produce and release an annual ICC report on funds expended, mitigation implemented, and
reserve balance
H.3. Expand ICC to allow assignment of claim to cover acquisition of damaged buildings as a means of
compliance.
H.4. Increase maximum of ICC coverage to $50,000 with an inflation factor and adjust policy fee as
necessary for costs; allow ICC claims over $50,000 by creating a sliding scale that requires match funding
or other mechanisms that ensure cost control
H.5. Implement law that allows FEMA Director to impose use of ICC when beneficial to NFIP Fund and
relax triggers for eligibility requirements of ICC claim eligibility so more structures can qualify (RL, SRL,
etc.) see G 11
H.6. Expand incorporation of ecosystem services and credits in benefit-cost analyses in all agencies
methods for non-structural mitigation including open space and land use approaches that reduce flood
damages
Page
11
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
H.7. Establish permanent authorization for Corps to conduct nonstructural floodproofing projects;
increase funding for existing Corps nonstructural programs
H.8. Continue to update FEMA B/C procedures to update depth-damage functions and include all social
and ecosystem services benefits
H.9. Streamline and institutionalize methods for delivering mitigation assistance and funding after flood
disasters
H. 10. Train FCOs, PA and IA field staff to require post-disaster mitigation and incorporate into allhazards mitigation plans Also see O. 15
H.11. Keep HMGP funding at 15% of disaster costs, with 20% for states with enhanced mitigation
programs
H.12. Write rules to implement HFIAA, BW-12, DMA2000 provisions for severe repetitive losses,
delegation of HMGP, and ICC
H.13. Track all repetitive loss information in databases to identify location of building and cause of
flooding, and share information with state and local partners on a real time basis. See E 4
H.14. Transfer administration and oversight of HMGP, FMA, and PDM to qualified states
H.15. Change date for inclusion of eligible costs under HMGP to the date of disaster declaration.
H.16. Periodically (3-5 years) conduct an independent evaluation of mitigation programs including PDM,
HMGP, FMA to quantify their effectiveness in reducing losses Also see E.9
H.17. Evaluate mitigation plans of communities hit by a disaster and summarize lessons learned and
evaluate effectiveness of mitigation plans. H.18. Require state and local mitigation plans to incorporate
consideration of cost-effective mitigation measures for infrastructure to be implemented post-disaster
H.19. Cross-train code officials and floodplain managers in building code-flood loss reduction programs
H.20. Increase cost share assistance to states and communities that meet and go beyond the
International Building Codes and NFIP regulations: an alternate; Reduce disaster and mitigation funding
for states and communities that follow only the minimal International Building Codes & NFIP
regulations.
H.21. Build state capability for mitigation by developing a FEMA/State partnership program for
mitigation modeled on the CAP program
H.22.
H.23. Ensure funds from all FEMA mitigation grant programs are used for non-structural mitigation and
not structural flood control, which is the purview of USACEH. 24. Collect and disseminate stories of local
and state success in hazard mitigation; include demonstrations of positive impacts on flood insurance
Page
12
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
H. 25. Require state and local hazard mitigation plans include emergency action plans and consider
adverse impacts on other properties and communities Also see I.9
H. 26. Encourage states and communities to develop holistic mitigation plans that will contribute to
community resilience and sustainability of their economy while integrating multiple federal programs
with a comprehensive review process
H. 28. Establish online database of state and local mitigation projects organized by type of mitigation
project
H.29. Require state and local mitigation plans to focus on local capabilities and what they can and will
do, with no federal funding. Require them to plan to create internal capability.
H.29. Require a high-level federal interagency (MitFLG?) follow-up review of causes, costs, impacts,
policies, and mitigation response for all major Presidentially-declared disasters.
H.30. Create (or utilize existing programs in HUD, SBA, etc.) low cost loan mechanisms to ensure all
homeowners and small business owners have access to mitigation funds which can be spread over time
H.31.Deploy nonstructural mitigation workshops in disaster areas during the initial recovery phase
I. Structural Projects
I.1. Use structural flood control projects only as a last mitigation resort & never to protect undeveloped
or added value development to “protected” land.
I.2.(a) Build all structural flood control measures to 500-year protection (to protect federal taxpayer
investment and insurance) even if B/C is cost effective at 100 year.
I.2. (b) Grandfather structures that provide between 100- and 500-year protection, based on current
and estimated future conditions hydrology, and make preferred risk insurance available. Develop a
mechanism to upgrade those structures to 500-year protection
I.2. (c) Revise automatic method of estimating benefit claims of previously constructed projects, based
only on river elevation fluctuations.
I.3. Prevent or mitigate any adverse impacts (social, economic, environmental) from construction,
repair, rehabilitation of structural projects prior to construction of the project
I.4. (a) Require local sponsor of structural flood control projects to demonstrate financial and technical
capacity for operation and maintenance before project approval or recognition of levees and all
structural and non-structural measures by NFIP, USACE or PL 84-99
1.4. (b) disallow reimbursement of local sponsor expenses that are used to build water resources
projects before the Administration has approved and Congress has authorized the project
Page
13
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
I.5. Oversee and enforce ongoing operation and maintenance of structural and non-structural measures
as a condition of federal support or deny/remove the project from PL 84-99 program
I.6. (a) Use watershed-based planning and coordinate programs when developing water resource
projects and require full analysis and evaluation to include nonstructural components
I-6. (b) Increase emphasis and establish incentives for the use of non-structural approaches in water
resources development and flood risk management programs through revised Principles, Requirements
and Guidelines and other planning tools.
I.7. (a) Perform environmental restoration of natural functions prior to or during repair, rebuilding of
structural projects and implement nonstructural complements
I.7 (b) Require full analysis and consideration of removing a structural project as an option to significant
repair or upgrade.
I.8. Map and require flood insurance (rates based on residual risk) and mitigation measures for all
building/development in failure zones associated with dams, levees, diversions, reservoirs
I.9. Require communities with NFIP-recognized structural flood measures to have a multi-hazard
mitigation plan and an emergency action plan Also see H.25
I.10. Moved to I.2. (b)
I.11. Inventory and build database of levees (public and private), general condition, and potentially atrisk development nationwide (number of structures and people) Also see E.7
I.12. Estimate useful life of existing flood control structures nationwide; develop strategy to inspect,
maintain, repair or remove
I.13. Agree on definitions of levees (and other structures) that incorporate consideration of function,
risk, and vulnerability
I.14. Set levees back from riparian area, to reduce erosion and scour, reduce flood levels and allow
natural ecosystem to serve their functions Also see K.12
I.15. Stand up the National Levee Committee of federal agencies and state/local partners to
revise/develop levee design standards to build in resilience, e.g., freeboard, spillways, etc.
I.16. (a) Develop guidance and training on proper inspection and maintenance of levees for accreditation
and recognition by NFIP; include responsibility of and consequences/liability to owner
I.16 (b) Update and revise federal emergency rehabilitation for flood control structures program (P.L.
84-99) to conform cost-sharing with other flood damage reduction programs, reduce federal disaster
costs, reduce risks, and support greater use of flood risk management and non-structural approaches.
Page
14
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
I.17. (a) Implement the federal policy that maintenance, inspection, and repair of levees is the
responsibility of levee owner
I.17 (b) Ensure that project sponsors commit to and continuously meet all conditions of PL 84-99
program or remove the project from the program.
I.18. (a) Enforce the requirement that federal taxpayer funds for levee repair are contingent upon
proper inspection, operation and maintenance by levee owner
I.18. (b) Develop a program to identify levees and other structures with repeated federal emergency
repair and rehabilitation expenditures, and require consideration of a full suite of risk mitigation options
for the structures (similar to NFIP repetitive loss mitigation programs.)
I.19. Develop a national levee safety program to be administered by states, integrated with state dam
and floodplain management programs
I.20. Encourage state dam safety programs by making disaster assistance or other federal funding
contingent on an effective State program; with reflective sliding scale cost share
I.21. Provide incentives for states to remove dams that can/should not be maintained
I.22. Use watershed-based, multi-objective planning to determine fate of aging dams in small
watersheds
I.23. Provide technical assistance for addressing aging dams in small watersheds
I.24. Determine federal taxpayer role in addressing aging dams in small watersheds
I.25. Make public aware of residual risk associated with structures including flood depths and velocities;
use signs and publicize insurance availability as minimum non-regulatory product in all Risk MAP
projects.
I.26. Establish a joint federal/state/regional work group to find ways to enhance levee performance and
set appropriate levels of protection
I.27. Develop consistent guidance for local and regional planning of levees and other structures
I.28. Revise federal agency Guidelines to balance the economic, social and environmental impacts of
water resources projects and to account for public safety in designing flood risk reduction structures—
all in accordance with the new Principles and Requirements
I. 29 Include requirements that Corps projects meet the same wetlands mitigation standards as other
agencies Review whether the WRDA 2014 requirement to raise the threshold for automatic
independent review of projects costing greater than $200 million (from previous $45 million) is
acceptable.
Page
15
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
I.30. Require long term Operation and Maintenance costs be included in BCA of structural and nonstructural projects
I. 31. Require communities relinquish all federal disaster assistance for future damage below the 100year flood elevation in areas protected by structural measures
I. 32. As part of all structural projects, require that maps be created that are based on failure and
overtopping inundation and those maps be publically available
I. 34. Require permanent deed notices on all properties protected by structural measures notifying them
of protection and where to get additional information
J. Infrastructure & Public Buildings
J.1. Develop national hazard resilience standards for the location, design, construction, and
reconstruction of all public infrastructure and including alternative locations and taking into account
factors of expected future conditions for cost effective mitigation, increases storm intensity, sea level
rise, etc. during the infrastructure’s expected life; these standards become a condition of federal
funding
J.2. Develop guidelines and standards (including no adverse impact requirement) required for use of
federal funding for local, county, and state transportation departments to use in the post-disaster repair
and reconstruction of damaged roads and bridges using federal disaster funds and taking into account
factors of all expected future conditions during the infrastructure expected life
J.3. Require state and local mitigation plans to identify the extent to which that infrastructure would be
eligible for Public Assistance; and determine mitigation measures to reduce future losses taking into
account expected future conditions.
J.4. Require utility companies eligible for Public Assistance to account for the flood risk in planning,
design, construction and re-construction of facilities, analyzing the full range of mitigation options
J.5. Is something missing here?
J.6. Make Public Assistance funding contingent upon mitigation measures for any facility substantially
damaged or damaged more than once in 10 years Also see F.6
J.7. Prohibit the use of federal funds to site new public infrastructure in the SFHA that would serve new
development In undeveloped areas
K. Natural & Beneficial Functions/Resources
Page
16
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
K.1. Initiate a national study on environmental degradation that results from water resources
development and the impact of that degradation on the economy
K.2. Based on the recommended national study (above), reformulate a statement of federal interest in
water resources policy; shift to sustainability and resilience rather than economic development
K.3. Develop a resource management strategy to further federal interest in water resources
K.4. Establish a National Riparian Zone Policy Also see I.14
K.5. Determine viability of conservation easements to protect high flood risk and high resource and
erodible lands in light in rising crop prices and food demand
K.6. Continue to examine the economic value of ecosystem services and how to incorporate those
values in all B/C analysis and flood risk and water resource management decisions. Also see P.7
K.7. Clarify Section 404 of Clean Water Act to reduce flood losses, protect riparian areas, wetlands and
waters of the US
K.8. Establish and fund a permanent Environmental Restoration Program within the Corps
K.9. Adjust federal BCA methodology so the USACE and FEMA methodology are consistent
K.10. Emphasize maintenance and protection of natural storage areas in all watersheds; increase the
CRS credit for preservation of storage areas anywhere within the watershed.
K.11. Encourage continuous buffer zones along all waterways and coasts Also see L. 2, L. 7
K.12. Convert Continuous Conservation Reserve Program to a permanent easement program for
riparian buffers nationwide
K.13. Collaborate to integrate/produce resource mapping in conjunction with flood mapping
K.14. Direct FEMA to study whether LOMCs undermine floodplain resources Also see G.2, I.7, K.15, T.8
K.15 Prohibit fill in all SFHA to protect natural resources.
K.15 Require an EA (environmental assessment) for all new floodplain permits unless the community has
done previous assessment for a planning area or the entire community.
K.16 Map and protect from development highly erosive areas adjacent to our rivers, streams and
coastlines. Not only are these areas risky for development, but frequently provide some of the most
valuable habitat within the watershed.
K.17 Catalog the location of all fills with the SFHA to determine their impact on natural functions,
including storage.
K.18 Increase the CRS minimum points required in NBF for CRS class 4 and 1 communities.
Page
17
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
L. Coastal Issues
L.1. Share/redirect navigation fuel tax for coastal and aquatic habitat restoration
L.2. Provide preferential support (grants and cost share) to states & localities whose policy is gradual
retreat from the shoreline. Encourage all coastal states to plan for sea level rise and develop a long term
plan to abandon barrier islands and low lying areas subject to sea level rise.
L.3. Establish a national policy for using a 100-150-years-into- the-future standard for all coastal
management, i.e., erosion, setbacks, sea level rise, subsidence Also see A.3
L.4. (a) Avoid the use of hard structures to protect shorelines unless no adverse impact can be
demonstrated; In order to support resilience, give preference to retreat or soft techniques in all funding
programs
L.4 (b) Require that funding and regulatory decisions to armor shorelines include an evaluation and
assignment of long-term costs to mitigate potential adverse impacts of armoring, including erosion and
scour.
L.5. Enforce the protection of dunes and mangroves as required in NFIP regulations
L.6. Provide more funds for purchase of barrier islands and easements on barrier islands, leverage
existing funds after a disaster
L.7. Require comprehensive planning for coastal acquisition; Require acquired lands to be dedicated to
resource restoration and enhancement to increase level of natural protection, and also to promote public
access to public trust lands.
L.8. Modify National Estuarine Research Reserve provisions to allow acquisition of uplands
L.9. (a) Expand the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS)
L.9. (b) Review and Strengthen monitoring/enforcement /penalties for non-compliance of provisions of
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
L.10. Do not remove protected natural, wilderness or federally owned areas from Coastal Barrier
Resources System
L.11. (a) Map and manage coastal erosion just like flooding, if it is to be covered by flood insurance
L.11 (b)Delineate all erosion hazard areas on FIRMs in order to increase awareness of erosion hazards
and vulnerability among property owners and local governments.
L.12. Evaluate coordination among all federal agencies and coastal states of coastal zone management,
floodplain management, and emergency management and identify actions to minimize conflicts, align
programs and missions, and increase efficiencies.
Page
18
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
L.13. Provide incentives to encourage coastal communities to have evacuation plans in place and/or to
encourage that approval of coastal development be contingent upon provision for warning and
evacuation plans Also see F.12, F.13, F.14
L.14. Plan and build highways to consider evacuation of the communities they serve
L.15. Improve public awareness of coastal risks and natural resources and functions, preparedness, and
evacuation
L. 16. Improve coastal flood maps by integrating bathymetric and topographic maps to show wave
runup, storm surge, erosion hazard areas, increased water surface elevations from future conditions
L.17. Evaluate the impact of making flood insurance mandatory for all buildings in coastal storm surge
zones
L.18. LiMWAs should not be optional and should be used on all coastal maps. See A 21 latter is covered
elsewhere
M. Arid Regions
M.1. Utilize the best available techniques to identify and quantify the risk of flooding, erosion and
debris flow hazards in arid regions, including alluvial fans and post-wildfire conditions. Also see F.18 and
N.1.
M.2. (a) Use new science and technology to update hydrologic and hydraulic methods or models for
arid regions projects. Encourage the use of stochastic numerical models to better simulate location,
extent, and depth of flooding in areas of flow path uncertainty. Also see A.4
M.2. (b) In the past , delineation techniques have failed to recognize flow path uncertainty in arid
regions. This resulted in unintentionally reducing the extent of predicted Special Flood Hazard Areas
and/or underpredicting volumes and depths of flooding and debris. After major flood-disaster storm
events cause erosion and new flow paths that change flood risks vertically and/or horizontally, provide a
low-cost LOMC process for NFIP communities and to update FIRMs (44CFR Part 65).
M.3.(c)M.2 (c) Development should be discouraged in areas subject to flow path uncertainty, erosion
and debris flow, in arid regions and other geographies.
M.3. Develop floodplain management techniques which address wildfire, flood and erosion cycle
hazards experienced in the arid regions. Best management practices will vary as appropriate amongst
the arid regions. Revise NFIP definitions, regulations, and elevation requirements and arid regions for
existing Special Flood Hazard Area zones: approximate Zone A in shallow sheet flooding less than 1-foot
deep, Zone AH in true ponding areas, and Zone AO where depth exceeds 3 feet, redefine or use Zone AE.
Clarify the elevation and freeboard requirements above natural grade in approximate Zone A, with no
BFE. Refer to 44CFR Parts 59.1, 60.3(b) and (c).
Page
19
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
M.4. FEMA should resume the needed arid regions research that was started with the 1985 DMA study
and the 1996 National Academy study. A starting point for resuming this effort may include:






Review the effectiveness of present identification, characterization, and mapping guidelines in
Appendix G. Identify pros and cons.
Collect alluvial fan flooding mitigation efforts utililized in the arid regions. Establish postconstruction performance of these features. Identify pros and cons.
Establish specific aspects of both Appendix G guidelines and mitigations efforts which need
improvement and/or further research and development.
In light of recent improvements in modeling software, FEMA should resume the alluvial fan
flooding research that was started with the 1985 DMA (“DMA” needs identification at first
instance?) study and the 1996 National Academy study. This effort should establish clear
guidance and policy on the applicability of different software on active and inactive alluvial fan
flooding areas, and establish different classifications if necessary and appropriate.
Establish policy and guidance to ensure that new technology used to determine flood hazards is
not improperly used to allow development in areas where high risk alluvial fan flooding is
possible.
Coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers to develop guidance on the appropriate
application of two dimensional software (including theirs) on alluvial fans and areas of
unpredictable flow paths. This would produce defensible recommendations by an organization
with no conflicting interests in the determination.
N. Special (or Unique) Flood-related Hazards
N.1. Require inclusion of unique hazards (erosion, subsidence, closed lake basins, frazil ice, ice jams,
tsunamis, debris flow and mud slides) in state/local hazard mitigation plans. Allow NFIP communities to
identify, map, and communicate erosion hazard zones and risks by federal, state, or local Zone E on
FIRMs or separate GIS layers (may be used for CRS credit) per 44 CFR Parts 59.1, 60.5, and 60.24. Also
see F.18, G.20, G.22, and K16 (erosive areas). N.2. Develop techniques for mapping, mitigation and
management of special hazards Also see A.2, A.3, A.4, M3 and M.4.
O. Disaster Management & Assistance
O.1. Implement the Emergency Management Assistance Compact so that it covers key aspects of the
mitigation and recovery phases
O.2. Restore FEMA to independent agency status;
O.3. Establish a National Response Plan that directs federal response but also ensures use of
“discretionary” funds and the goals of long-term recovery, mitigation and redevelopment
Page
20
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
O.4. Make the availability of and amount (sliding-cost-share)of disaster assistance contingent upon
taking local/state mitigation action
O.5. Make (disaster assistance) Public Assistance contingent upon the community and state having an
effective updated hazard mitigation plan and community participation in any available pre-disaster
mitigation program for which hazards pose a significant threat in the plan .
O.6. For natural disasters in flood prone communities, make disaster assistance contingent upon NFIP
participation, compliance, and maintenance of insurance
O.7. Ensure that actions undertaken pursuant to emergency action plans do not cause adverse flood
impacts on other properties in the community or other communities
O.8. Find ways to use local monitoring data in warning the public of impending disasters
O.10. Establish a combined review process for community/state compliance, mitigation, enforcement
after a flood
O.11. Establish a comprehensive set of emergency rules for funding, cost-sharing, and priorities so
federal programs after a disaster are consistent
O.12. Establish a uniform set of application forms for all federal post-disaster assistance for mitigation
O.13. Work with all federal agencies to ensure post-disaster policies and programs are consistent with
NFIP and national resilience/sustainability goals
O.14. Review PA and IA and all federal agency post disaster programs for consistency with all relevant
federal Executive Orders (especially floodplains, wetlands, resilience and climate change)
O.15. Ensure that PA staff and contractors have expertise to make decisions about post-disaster
reconstruction of public infrastructure and facilities that incorporate mitigation
O.16. Revise Stafford Act provisions to allow reimbursement of overwhelmed communities for postdisaster damage assessments, substantial damage determination, ordinance administration, permitting
up to 24 months after disaster
O. 17. Collect and share damage assessment under IA with State and local officials
O.18. Develop and utilize methods to track all federal expenditures and lost revenue due to each
disaster declaration in order to determine the full cost to society and taxpayers of disasters. Publish
preliminary results within one year of the declaration and final results within 5.
Q 19. Establish a federal oversight group similar to the National Transportation Safety Board, to collect
data and analyze the damages, cause and economic, social and environmental impacts of all disasters
Page
21
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
O.20. Require all federal recovery programs be reviewed and adjusted to consider mitigation and
resiliency alternatives and evaluate long term solutions (require that water resource projects and PL 8499 for example consider non-structural measures )
O.21. FEMA, in consultation with other appropriate federal agencies, develop and maintain a national
comprehensive strategic framework for mitigation and mitigation related metrics that are used to
measure the success of a post-event disaster recovery. Require that mitigation metric be developed and
used as an indicator of a of a successful disaster management and recovery
O. 22. Improve the efficiency and delivery of HMTAP such as allowing FCOs to approve requests in the
field versus FEMA Regions or FEMA HQ.
O. 24. Assist in Building State Capability Including Mechanisms to Assist with Catastrophic and Multiple
Events.
O. 25. Improve the Federal Government’s Ability to Supplement State Program’s Capability with Robust
and Timely Technical Assistance in a Post-Disaster Environment.
O. 26. Require detailed tracking and enforcement of required flood insurance on Group Flood Insurance
Policies and flood insurance on SBA Disaster Loans post-Flooding. Flood insurance should also be
required on SBA Disaster Loans that are in NSFHAs.
P. Economic Methods and Policies
P.1. Develop and transition to a National Economic resilience/Sustainability standard instead of
National Economic Development standard for water resource projects
P.2. Evaluate how to implement National Research Council recommendations on B/C analysis
P.3. Revise B/C procedure to account for opportunity costs (foregone benefits)
P.4. Consider and broaden regulations governing FEMA’s B/C analysis to include all benefits including
non-market societal and environmental benefits
P.5. Conduct a study to determine the advantages/disadvantages of a unified flood-only benefit/cost
method for FEMA and the Corps
P.6. Utilize FEMA’s National Benefit/Cost Team to continuously evaluate the B/C method and
procedures
P.7. Continue to develop and apply methods to quantify natural functions/resources Also see K.6
Page
22
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
P.8. Enable and support federal interagency and interdepartmental water policy coordinating
mechanisms to implement Principles, Requirements and Guidelines
P.9. Upgrade agency Guidelines to reflect the new Principles and Requirements to include sustainability;
account for all benefits; provide greater emphasis on nonstructural; and to balance economic, social and
environmental concerns
P.10. For nonstructural projects, include cost of land and easements as part of total project costs, not
local sponsor shareP.11. Direct and fund a new evaluation of the use of risk-based analysis in the design
and construction of flood risk reduction structures
P.12. Provide guidance for the use of risk-based analysis for projects in high-risk areas (urban levees)
P.15. Modify the Corps’ standard cost-sharing formula to provide a 75/25 federal/local ratio for all
nonstructural projects
P. 16 Revise all cost sharing formulas to take into account the adequacy of the community’s floodplain
management program using the CRS classification (or something) as a surrogate.
Q. Partnerships & Incentives
Q.1. Provide incentives for the acceptance of responsibility for flood risk by citizens, states,
communities, private sector Also see R.1–13; S1–15; T.1–12
Q.2. Amend Disaster Relief Act to apportion costs, responsibilities, roles among fed, state, locals, public
commensurate with risk (sliding cost share as incentive)
Q.3. Create financial incentives for communities, such as: basing all federal flood-related assistance to
states and localities on a sliding cost-share: the more mitigation, the smaller the non-federal share;
nonstructural measures and those that retain/enhance natural systems should always get a larger
federal share
Q.4. Make receipt of any federal disaster assistance (public or private) contingent upon taking
mitigation measures and the purchase of insurance
Q.5. Make Public and individual Assistance and mitigation grant eligibility contingent on NFIP
participation and compliance and on maintaining flood insurance
Q.6. Award increased Public Assistance to communities that meet all existing or future national
standards for infrastructure
Q.7. Amend existing law so that communities would be allowed to bank mitigation expenditures as nonfederal share of next disaster
Page
23
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
Q.8. Make all flood related mitigation funding (including levee and dam funds) contingent on having a
comprehensive, mitigation plan that will support community resilience/sustainability.
Q.9. Support and fund incentives for sustainable uses of floodprone agricultural lands
Q.10. Reduce subsidized crop insurance and crop disaster assistance (disincentives to wise use of
floodprone lands) and tie all such taxpayer support to producer conservation compliance.
Q.11. Use incentives to encourage alternative, sustainable crops
Q.12. Deny subsidized crop insurance and disaster payments to agricultural producers with repetitive
losses who do not accept offers of permanent easements or switch to alternative crops
Q.13. States should Join together in existing or form new mutual aid (emergency management
assistance) compacts
Q.14. Delegate (with monitoring) to qualified states the administration of flood mapping, HMGP, FMA,
CAP, and environmental reviews for mitigation projects
Q.15. Explore use of true delegation model to move responsibility for NFIP activities to states (mapping,
monitoring communities for compliance, technical assistance, training, etc.)
Q.16. Make CAP funding contingent upon the state’s provision of one fully funded professional full-time
position—a CFM in floodplain management
Q. 17. Encourage market-driven private-sector incentives for mitigation
Q. 18. Federal agencies should encourage integration of certification programs for the International
Codes and for floodplain management (CFM)
Q. 19. Deny subsidized assistance for public infrastructure that would encourage development in flood
risk areas
Q.20. Prohibit the use of federal funds to build any infrastructure to serve currently undeveloped SFHA.
Q. 21.Reform the casualty loss deduction to better target the deduction as well as incentivize those that
have mitigated. For example, limits could be set as to the number of times a person could claim the
deduction without first mitigating as well as a means tested system to limit incomes of claimants.
Q. 22. Develop a hazard mitigation tax credit much like energy efficiency tax credits that are given to
property owners.
Q. 23. Allow for tax advantaged disaster savings accounts
Q. 24. Provide specific IRS guidance more broadly exempting cost effective mitigation assistance from
and funding source from federal taxes. Currently only FEMA mitigation programs have a specific
exemption.
Page
24
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
R. Federal Leadership
R.1. Establish high-level coordinating mechanism for federal water resources policy
R.2. Establish a National Flood Risk Management Policy
R.3. Adopt a watershed-based, comprehensive approach for all federal water resources activities and
programs
R.4. Evaluate compliance with federal EO on floodplain management to ensure 500-year protection for
critical facilities; ensuring access to and fully operational facilities during 500-year flood; avoiding
floodplain when possible; using future conditions in decision-making; avoiding adverse impacts
R.5. Assign responsibility for oversight of EO 11988 compliance to somewhere in Administration
R.6. Require all federal agencies to issue new floodplain management EO guidance that reflects other
EO’s on resilience, sustainability and climate change, with stronger mechanisms for monitoring,
reporting, enforcement and accountability; (example; Require that all Federally funded transportation
projects incorporate comprehensive flood and storm hazard mitigation design standards.
R.7. Enforce all lease restrictions on federally leased flood-prone land, especially denial of flood
insurance, and non-renewal after expiration of the lease.
R.8. FEMA should Establish a work group to assess and implement recommendations of 2012 report on
“Rethinking the NFIP”
R.9. ASFPM should analyze “Effective State Programs” to work with states to encourage states to move
beyond basic and toward model flood risk management programs
R.10. Provide full funding for flood risk management data gathering and development (GIS, stream
gaging, forecasting, mapping, Integrated Ocean Observing System, research)
R.11. Give FEMA Director discretionary authority (with input from localities and the state) to require
communities to use advisory maps and BFEs (It could be a requirement of CRS communities to use
advisory or preliminary maps as best available data.)
R.12. Support professional certification programs for floodplain managers, adjusters, agents, and
others; provide more insurance-related training via the NFIP Training Contractor.
R.13. Provide generous and reliable funding for federal programs that generate the most long-term
impact, i.e., technical assistance and state/local capability-buildings
R. 14. Make NFIP participation and disaster assistance contingent upon states’ ensuring that their
funding, regulations, and programs comply with the NFIP; with monitoring and penalties for
noncompliance
Page
25
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
R. 15. Provide adequate resources and opportunities for collaboration with state and local partners of
interagency coordination entities such as the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force
and MITigation Federal Leadership Group (MitFLG).
R. 16. Consider shifting to a national model that delegates floodplain management authority to states,
with incentives provided through ALL federal grants, disaster relief, etc.
R. 17. Support examinations of alternative paradigms for national flood policy and programs, including
governance, mapping, avoidance of flood risk areas and flood insurance
R. 18. Provide incentives to encourage states to issue and enforce effective executive orders on
floodplain management
R.19. Establish strong federal floodplain management rules for federal investments and actions that are
based on the principles of long term resiliency – including from climate change, use of natural
ecosystems for resilience/sustainability and flood damage reduction.
R. 20. Develop sustained state and local flood hazard mitigation grant programs that can complement
federal investments in hazard mitigation.
R. 21. Provide incentives (CRS, disaster relief and others) for all state and local managers to be CFMs.
R. 22. Pass sufficient enabling authority for regions and communities to develop stormwater utilities or
similar mechanisms that can provide resources for an array of flood risk management and loss reduction
actions.
R. 23. FEMA should develop and implement a CAP-SSSE type program to assist states in building state
hazard mitigation capability.
S. Building State & Local Capability
S.1. Support and provide incentives to states in efforts to encourage progressive state and local
programs and activities, including NAI approaches (explore allowing states to participate in the CRS
program)
S.2. Develop procedures and implement the “managing state” concept
S.3. Increase funding for federal programs that provide technical expertise that supports state
mitigation strategies and the production of mitigation grant applications
S.4. Encourage (or require as condition of CAP or grants) states and localities to conduct own
engineering reviews, LOMR and LOMA submissions, and integrate state dam and levee safety programs
with floodplain management Also see A.14
Page
26
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
S.5. Redesign CAP and other delegation programs to emphasize building state and local capability
instead of simply buying state services
S. 6. Negotiate CAP participation individually with each state with each change of state administration,
and require governor-level commitment from state, using many forms of federal funding as an incentive
S.7. Same as above—change to: States need to upgrade their entire programs: regulations, intraagency coordination, policies on where state emergency management funds are spent, their mitigation
efforts, etc. There should be some minimum standards for state programs, which ASFPM should work
with states/feds to create and promote.
S.8. Allow states to allocate up to 50% of CAP funding to state-selected non NFIP, but effective flood
loss reduction activities (not projects)
S.9. Tie CAP funding to NFIP and flood disaster reduction-related needs and add annual inflationindexed increases
S.10. Provide incentives and disincentives to encourage states to view CAP as auxiliary funding to state
floodplain management programs, not sole source Require one full time state funded position (CFM) to
receive any CAP funds.
S.11. Properly fund CRS verification program to ensure CRS credits are properly earned or class rating
reduced.
S.12. No – the community is rewarded with reduced premiums and less flood risk
S.13. Publicize successful activities of CRS communities – why they are successful, how the activity
reduces risk and/or promotes sustainability and how they got it all done
S.14. Develop, fund, and implement technical and financial support and other incentives for localities to
conduct its own management and mitigation programs
S.15. Provide incentives to encourage communities to integrate floodplain management with land use
and watershed conservation plans Require in HM Plans and for credit of flood plans in CRS.
S.16. Conduct independent reviews of state and local programs to determine effectiveness on a five year
cycle.
S.!7 All FEMA Regions should annually host meeting/training with State NFIP coordinators and SHMOs
T. Individual Accountability
T.1. Continue to move to actuarially sound flood insurance rates over time for all buildings T.2.
Continue movement towards actuarial rates for pre-FIRM residences as per HFIAA; put them on the
same path as others if they have a loss
Page
27
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
T.3. Continue increasing insurance rates on repetitive loss structures; and move to full actuarial rates if
SRL owners refuse an offer of mitigation assistance
T.4. (a) Encourage private insurance programs if the flood mapping, management and mitigation
aspects can be accounted for
Encourage insurance and reinsurance industry to rate flood coverage as part of homeowners policies,
with incentives for appropriate mitigation actions
T.5. Base receipt and amount of disaster assistance to individuals on the extent to which they mitigated
and/or insured their flood risk
T.6. Establish procedure by which FEMA Director can require mitigation for a structure that has filed a
flood damage claim
T.7. Give preference for mitigation grants to individuals who use their flood insurance claim payment for
mitigation
T.8. Discontinue practice of waiving the flood insurance requirement after issuance of LOMR-Fs and
LOMAs; apply risk-based rates instead. Also see F.5, G.2, K.13
T.9. Expand outreach to the public, adjusters, and insurance agents about repetitive losses and how ICC
can be a most effective tool to mitigate the flood risk and reduce insurance premiums
T.10. Appropriate additional funding for public outreach on flood risk and insurance, especially for
communities with levees
T.11. Clearly communicate flood risk (e.g. policy renewal should show what actuarial rate would be as
well as current rate); uncertainty in forecasts, better terminology; awareness campaigns
T.12 Enhance the outreach capabilities of FEA disaster, mitigation, insurance and mapping programs to
promote a better understanding of individual risk and options to deal with the risk.
T.13. Ensure actual cost of flood insurance is annually communicated clearly and directly to policy
holders, regardless of discounts or subsidies
U. Agriculture Policies
U.1. Evaluate federal agricultural policies and their impact on flood loss reduction and floodplain
function and resources; then use this data to integrate federal agencies flood risk programs into other
programs (FIFM-TF or MitFLG)
U.2. Increase funding for popular and effective agricultural conservation programs that protect natural
values of flood-prone lands, floodplain functions and natural ecosystem resources
Page
28
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
U.3. Integrate agriculture programs with flood loss reduction and floodplain management programs
U.4. Tie the Conservation Reserve Program and related agricultural programs to market prices of
commodities Also see Q.9, Q.10, Q.11, Q.12; I.14; K.13
V. Climate Change
V.1. Evaluate regional/local vulnerability of U.S. population centers to climate change impacts and
provide adaptation options
V.1.a Develop unified national policy/response plan to deal with the impacts of climate change,
especially sea level rise, including mitigation prior to an event and response after an event. Develop
minimum standards for the expenditure of all federal dollars following a disaster to account for
anticipated climate impacts..
V.2. Support/participate in data collection & analysis on impacts of and adaptation to climate change
V.3. Require analysis of impacts & adaptations to climate in all mitigation planning.
V.4. Issue Executive Order to compel federal agency consideration of climate change impacts Also see
L.3
V.5. Revise federal agencies BCA methods to include projected impacts of climate change over the life
of the project.
V.6. Develop grant guidance to encourage/incentivize projects to address climate change
V.7. Require all Class 7 and better CRS communities to consider and plan for climate change in their
floodplain management plans, maps and regulations.
V.8 Require all Class 4 and better CRS communities to include the impacts of land use and climate
changes through 2100 in their mapping, planning, and regulations.
W. Beach Nourishment
W.1. Develop guidance to determine when beach re- nourishment is in the federal interest
W.2. Do not use beach nourishment in any federally funded projects, unless federal interest will be met
W.3: Require that the Federal interest in beach nourishment be demonstrated to exceed the Federal
interest in other, more permanent mitigation options that are more sustainable and don’t require
ongoing expenditures. At least reduce the federal cost share for beach nourishment
Page
29
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
W.4: Require that benefit-cost analyses for Federally funded nourishment projects identify and evaluate
full costs, including periodic renourishment, increased costs for locating and acquiring suitable material,
long-term project maintenance and required protection of induced development and redevelopment.
W.5: Revise the cost-sharing agreements for Federal nourishment projects to shift more of the cost to
non-Federal sponsors who receive the majority of the project benefits (suggest 35% Federal – 65% nonFederal as a start).
W.6: Require that Federal nourishment projects be monitored and evaluated periodically to determine if
the project has actually performed as planned and justified based on costs, to determine if the project
should be abandoned or the design should be amended to reflect changing conditions, and to increase
efficiencies, reduce costs and provide greater benefits.
W.7: Include specific requirements (not guidance) for public access to and use of beaches nourished with
Federal dollars as a condition of funding, including minimum number of access points, parking and rest
rooms that provide “meaningful” public access.
W.8: Require that planning, benefit-cost analyses, design and construction of Federal nourishment
projects account for sea level rise.
W.9: Require benefit cost analyses for Federal nourishment projects to consider all mitigation
alternatives, including acquisition and land use management options, and to demonstrate that these
options are not cost-beneficial before considering nourishment.
X. Resilience
NOTE: this is a suggested added area of policy. Feel free to suggest national flood policy that relates to
this. In the final document, we will likely pull items from the remainder of the list that may fit more
appropriately in the resilience category and move them here.
(General Note: There are a lot of inconsistencies and formatting issues throughout this document – I
assume these will be addressed by the final reviewers and technical writers before going final?
Page
30
ASFPM draft national flood policy
7-7-14 draft