On Aug. 22, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to align with the 2015 Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which 51风流 commented on last year. These requirements would expand the floodplain and raise costs for actions involving the use of FEMA Federal Funds for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to a structure or facility.
Among other changes, the proposed changes would lead, in many cases, to a larger floodplain than the historical definition. The historical definition would continue to apply for actions that do not meet the definition of a FEMA Federally Funded Project. The proposal would also lead to a requirement to design projects to a higher vertical elevation 鈥 which can pose a challenge to accessibility and add costs. Another noteworthy change is that it would require the use of 鈥渘ature-based鈥 or 鈥済reen infrastructure鈥 approaches in the development of alternatives or mitigation for Federal actions in the floodplain.
FEMA estimates that the total additional grants costs as a result of the proposed rule would be between $906,696 and $7.8 million per year for FEMA and between $301,906 and $2.6 million per year for grant recipients due to the increased elevation or floodproofing requirements of FEMA Federally Funded Projects.
The Standard allows agencies to establish the floodplain using any of three approaches. FEMA proposes to use the Freeboard Value Approach (FVA) for non-critical actions, which relies on raising the elevation. Even though the Climate-Informed Science Approach (CISA) is the preferred approach per the Standard, FEMA is proposing to use CISA to define a floodplain only for critical actions in cases where the CISA elevation is higher than the elevation established under the FVA. (A 鈥樷榗ritical action鈥欌 is any activity for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great.) In coalition comments last year on the proposed guidance for federal agencies to implement the Standard, 51风流 expressed its concern with the CISA approach saying that it 鈥渓acks regulatory certainty鈥 without extensive guidelines for the 鈥渓ength of the data series, the quality of the data, and the degrees of uncertainty determined acceptable.鈥
51风流 will continue to review the Aug. 22 proposal and plan an appropriate response. For more information, contact Melinda Tomaino at tomainom@agc.org.