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.

This should also include what regulations should not be included in national regulations or only minimal requirements, leaving the local communities to regulate in a way that better suits their community. Maybe these would include climate change, etc.
FEMA should create NFIP regulations revisions workgroups for riverine, coastal, arid regions, and/or east and west (of Mississippi River) NFIP communities.

F.1. (b) Promote NAI based development standards in the base International Construction Codes (ICC) codes as well as the ICC green codes

Require participating states and their communities to adopt the IRC and IRC without exception or change. (In several states the provisions for determining substantial damage/substantial improvements has been omitted. This has resulted in 1-story, 2-bed cabins in the V-zone being converted to multi-story, $multi-million homes at-grade.)
Add New F.1.(c) Require communities to adopt a minimum of 1’ Freeboard or the 2015 ICC Residential Code (that will require +1’ Freeboard) as a condition of receiving PA assistance following a disaster event]

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

To increase NFIP knowledge and compliance, a minimum FEMA requirement should be the local floodplain managers or at least one permitting staff to be an ASFPM Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) similar to CRS Activity 432.o. Regulations administration (RA). Also see F.10.

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

Many local communities have already gone to this requirement. 1’ should remain as minimum requirement at federal level.
FEMA should clarify the elevation and freeboard requirements above natural grade in approximate Zone A, with no BFE, in 44 CFR 60.3(b).

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.

Add new F.4. (d) Require 500’ setback from mean low water for new construction in coastal areas that have a coastal erosion rate of 5’ to 10’ per year; Require a minimum of 1,000’ setback if the coastal erosion rate exceeds 10’ per year.

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

Does this recommendation refer to new structures or existing ones as well? Clarify. Suggestion is to say no “new or substantially improved habitable structures…”

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

Add “critical facilities” to section J. Infrastructure & Public Buildings. Include the flood insurance requirement for public buildings, which may be critical facilities, in sections G. Flood Insurance or J
Consider adding a F.6(b) Rewrite or issue guidance for evaluation of practicable alternatives to clarify compliance with 44 CFR 65.7(a) Floodway revisions and 44 CFR 65.12(a)(2) Revision of FIRMs to reflect BFEs caused by proposed encroachments.

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 non-published BFEs.

4 CFR 60.3(c)(10) includes “until a regulatory floodway is designated” and many communities have difficulty tracking the cumulative effect of encroachments. An NFIP community should regulate encroachments to prevent adverse impacts and it may not be possible to get agreement by all impacted property owners. FEMA should consider a time frame such as a 10-year period to track the cumulative effect of encroachments, then allow a low cost LOMC process for the NFIP community to revise the floodplain to reflect any encroachments, revised BFEs, and a new floodway.

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

Intent of this recommendation is hard to understand as it is written. Is the proposal that all USGS blueline streams in urban areas be mapped as FEMA regulatory floodplains? USGS blueline streams often go further up in the watershed than a FEMA floodplain cutoff does. Many communities map and regulate their own regulatory floodplains higher up in the watershed than the FEMA floodplain cutoff. Communities should have their preference on whether to extend the FEMA floodplain further up in the watershed or not.
The topography for USGS blue line streams is usually not as detailed (20 to 40 feet Contour Interval) as for subdivisions (2-foot Contour Interval). Communities typically require new detailed topography or cross-sections for hydraulic models with a floodway analysis, especially for subdivisions and large scale developments.

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.

The threshold should be two or more structures and 1 acre or more.
These draft recommendations for subdivisions and large developments can be addressed in some NFIP regulations, International Building Codes, local development standards including stormwater management or local subdivision regulations. The NFIP regulations can be revised or expanded, such as 44 CFR 60.3(a)(4) that requires the community to review subdivision proposals to be reasonably safe from flooding. Since many communities have difficulty regulating subdivisions, clarify 44 CFR 65.3 for physical changes affecting flooding conditions, to require a LOMC for all subdivisions triggered by any development in the SFHA (grading, fill, drainage structures, buildings, utilities, etc.). Also clarify that 44 CFR 60.2(h) modified data reflecting natural or man-made physical changes and 60.3(b)(6 & 7) altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained, refer to a LOMC requirement. FEMA could provide new NFIP regulations and more specific guidance for subdivisions and large developments, especially for small NFIP communities with no development standards or subdivision regulations.

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)..

Delete. This should be left to the local community’s decision.
What agency or party is recommended to REQUIRE the stated 50-100 year event stormwater management standards that are mostly applied to development outside of the SFHA? Those standards are the role and responsibility of individual communities. Many communities already do design to the 100 year event on all storm sewer systems whether in the floodplain or not.

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).

Delete. Very cumbersome requirement for smaller communities & developers.
Subdivision regulations can include the SFHA and floodway to be identified and delineated on plats and plat notes to identify CLOMRs with case numbers, permitting requirements for specific lots, future LOMCs, existing natural hazards, riparian habitat, ESA areas, etc.

F.10 (a)Develop and implement effective monitoring, probation and suspension guidance and standards for better NFIP compliance for all NFIP participating communities.

Use the NFIP Guidance for Conducting Community Assistance Contacts and Community Assistance Visits FEMA F-776, April 2011 for consistent guidance and deadlines by requiring comprehensive compliance follow-up by the State agency receiving the CAP-SSSE funds and enforcement by the FEMA Regional office and FEMA Headquarters. Also see G.13, O.10, and R.14.

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.

“in coastal zones, or everywhere” is awkward. Consider simply “in Special Flood Hazard Areas”

F.11. Revise the NFIP regulations to include identification and management measures for subsidence related to flood risk management.

There are many areas of the country where this is just not an issue.

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)

The cost of engineering fees and FEMA LOMC review fees are already disincentives for filling in floodplain and performing LOMC’s. Instead prohibiting use of LOMC’s with fill, require compensatory floodplain storage by the property owner as part of the LOMC process. Many communities already require compensatory floodplain storage as a requirement of that fill. If a small portion of a property floodplain is filled, but an even larger portion of floodplain flood volume is cut to add flood volume, the hydraulic effect of the LOMC can actually have a beneficial floodplain impact.
The use of fill should be considered an acceptable elevation technique, but not justification for a LOMR. In almost every case the property is still within the SFHA and subject to flooding. Moreover, if a LOMR-F is issued, the property owner can purchase flood insurance at the ‘preferred risk’ rate. Standards need to be developed before fill can be considered to be outside of the SFHA. For example:

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.

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

FEMA may consider a time frame such as a 10-year 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.

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.

Many CRS communities are non-compliant of basic, minimum NFIP regulations for new construction or substantial improvements of residential structures, but still receive CRS points and flood insurance reductions for mitigation activities of pre-FIRM and noncompliant post-FIRM structures. See F.10.

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

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 K.16.

F.19 Revise the LOMC requirements to require an Environmental Assessment in all instances to ensure endangered species are not impacted.

Delete this in its entirety. This is going beyond FP management, extending into the environmental realm. Many of us are not supporters of this approach. Let EPA take this issue on.

This is going beyond FP management. Let EPA take this issue on.
Environmental Assessments are expensive and often of little value to the property owner or community preparing them for LOMC’s. They should be prepared when required by law and not in ALL cases. Other agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Protection Agency etc. should direct those requirements instead of NFIP regulations.
Disagree – this recommendation should be deleted in its entirety. It may be appropriate for LOMR-Fs, but no other LOMR, and certainly not for LOMAs.
Clarify the development triggers to require a LOMC. See F.9. 44 CFR 65.3.

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.

This is going beyond FP management. Let EPA take this issue on.

F.21. Promote NAI based development standards in the international green construction code.

F.22. Require V Zone construction standards in coastal A Zones.

Develop specific coastal A zone construction standards instead of the current concept of over-engineering a building (breakaway walls + openings) to meet the insurance rating requirements. 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. FEMA should develop actual model code language for coastal A-Zones.

New Suggestion for F.23:

F.23. Require the adoption of a cumulative standard by all NFIP communities, especially for those that are actively participating in the CRS program.

New Suggestion for F.24:

FEMA and HUD should clarify NFIP compliance for Manufactured Homes (MFH). FEMA can refer to 44 CFR 59.1 Definitions and 44 CFR 60.3(c)(6 & 12). HUD can refer to 24 CFR Parts 3285 and 3286. Per FEMA Regional offices, the local community is responsible for NFIP compliance of MFH so the State MFH agency should send installers to the Local Authority Having Jurisdiction (LAHJ) for NFIP permit and compliance requirements per 24 CFR 3285.102 Installation of manufactured homes in flood hazard areas.

New Suggestion for F.25

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.

New Suggestion for F.26

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.

New Suggestion for F.27

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 4 hours of continuing education units, biannually.

New Suggestion for F.28

[Require FEMA/NFIP to provide each LFA a “after action” summary following all declared Federal disasters as soon as possible following the event. The After Action summary should include all NFIP paid Claims (similar to the Repetitive Loss List). The LFA should be required to include a copy of paid NFIP flood claims data in each building permit file where structures have been determined not to be substantially damaged. FEMA regional offices should perform a CAV on each community in a Federal declared disaster within one year following the event]