51风流 Shares Concerns Regarding Agency鈥檚 Approach to Flood Risk Management
On Oct. 21, 51风流 expressed concerns with a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposal to . FEMA is undergoing this effort to align with the 2015 Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which 51风流 also commented on last year. FEMA鈥檚 proposal would expand the floodplain and raise costs for construction that uses FEMA federal funds. It would also add vague requirements to incorporate 鈥済reen infrastructure鈥 approaches.
The 2015 Standard allows agencies to establish the floodplain using any of three approaches. This allowance could expand the floodplain, impact other regulatory programs, and create a confusing patchwork of floodplain methodologies across agencies. In its comments, 51风流 reiterated its ongoing concerns regarding the potential impact that expanding the floodplain could have on other regulatory programs, such as the Endangered Species Act. In addition, different methods for establishing the floodplain can complicate projects where multiple agencies have to work together during the planning and permitting process, such as with projects that fall under the National Environmental Policy Act, 51风流鈥檚 comments explain.
FEMA鈥檚 Proposed Approach for Establishing the Floodplain
As the first agency to attempt to implement the 2015 Standard, instead of trying to reduce possible uncertainty and set a clear path for other agencies to follow, FEMA would add to the confusion by offering multiple methods for establishing the floodplain. First, 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 would 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.) 51风流 expressed its concern with the CISA approach in coalition comments submitted last year (on the proposed guidance for federal agencies to implement the Standard; included as an attachment in 51风流鈥檚 Oct. 21st comment letter), 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
Second, 51风流 also has concerns with FEMA鈥檚 proposed 鈥渆levation鈥 approach because it 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 鈥渆levation鈥 approach would add costs to rebuilding activities not only because of additional materials and labor, but also because more projects in the (potentially expanded) floodplain would need to be designed to a higher vertical elevation. The cost of raising vertical structures can be prohibitive, and would be even more so if the requirement is applied to horizontal construction such as roads --- which is at this moment unclear.
51风流 is encouraged that FEMA decided against using an approach reliant on incomplete climate science data to establish the floodplain for FEMA federally funded projects
FEMA鈥檚 Proposed Green Infrastructure Approach
Another unclear yet noteworthy change is the proposed requirement to use 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 where possible. FEMA鈥檚 proposal contains very little detail on this requirement with little direction on how to define a nature-based approach nor what the agency intends by 鈥渨here possible.鈥 Green infrastructure can mean vastly differing strategies ranging from rain gardens to constructed wetlands, with many points in between, and vastly differing costs. Green infrastructure may help reduce localized runoff from the roofs and sidewalks on a property but are more suited as a strategy to manage runoff from normal rainfall events. 51风流 pointed out that many of these strategies would be ineffective against a storm surge or flooding. In addition, green infrastructure requires upkeep to maintain any of its effectiveness. Without further details on the requirement, 51风流 urged FEMA to remove it from the proposal.
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 flood proofing requirements of FEMA Federally Funded Projects.
For more information, contact Melinda Tomaino at tomainom@agc.org .