SPRING 2007 Massachusetts MMMS – Business Plan Summary Data based on information provided by the Department of Conservation and Recreation dated July 2006 and other FEMA sources REGIONAL AND STATE VIEW Federal FY06 Region I Funding Distribution Total $6,507,960 New Rhode Island Hampshire 2.4% Connecticut 7.8% 7.6% Vermont Massachusetts 11.6% MMMS - 1.0% Maine Massachusetts 29.5% Non-CTP Mapping Funds 40.1% Source: State percentage received of total FY06 Flood Map Modernization Regional production budget according to internal FEMA procurement data (PALT). Massachusetts 41.1% PURPOSE OF BUSINESS PLAN SUMMARY The Map Modernization Management Support (MMMS) Business Plan Summary was compiled by reviewing the Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2009 MMMS Business Plans and FY 2007 updates. These business plans were submitted to the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by FEMA’s MMMS partners. The spring 2007 Business Plan Summary is being published at the crossroads of FEMA’s mid-program evaluation and the end-state conditions of Map Modernization. This year, the summary reflects the MMMS partners’ approach to and the effects of FEMA’s mid-course adjustment, in addition to outlining their accomplished and planned MMMS activities, highlighting the MMMS partner’s approach to meeting the goals of and program vision for Map Modernization. FEMA’s mid-course adjustment is a redirection of improving and updating the Nation’s flood hazard identification maps. FEMA will now focus on developing flood maps that meet new higher standards for mapping and for a greater allocation of resources to those communities at greatest flood risk. The “end state conditions” refer to how successful the flood mapping effort is at the end of Map Modernization in FY 2010. STATE VISION FOR MAP MODERNIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION Due to current fiscal conditions at both state and local levels there will likely need to be a creative approach toward identifying and implementing partnerships in Map Modernization. The governmental structure in Massachusetts also necessitates a creative approach to partnership. EFFECTS/APPROACH OF/TO MIDCOURSE ADJUSTMENT As a result of the concerns related to the countywide approach, the Flood Hazard Management Program (FHMP) is proposing a different approach to Map Modernization. This new approach addresses the problems with the countywide approach and provides some potential solutions. It will be referred to as the “risk based approach” going forward. With the remaining Map Modernization funding, the FHMP would like to fund restudies for the highest priority flood sources, regardless of what county they are located in. In certain counties where the countywide model has not already been applied, this approach may result in limited community based map updates, or no map updates. Since the flood sources that are a high priority for restudy are in the areas of greatest risk according to the census block group analysis performed by Regional Management Center 1, this approach appears to follow the methodology of FEMA’s recent Midcourse Adjustment. SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND STRENGTHS OR SUCCESS STORIES In January 2006, the FHMP added a fourth FTE funded under the MMMS grant program. This position is known as the “Mapping Coordinator.” The Mapping Coordinator is now responsible Please See Page 2 MAP OF PRELIMINARY DFIRMS MAP OF EFFECTIVE DFIRMS 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 LEGENDMap of Effective DFIRMs Source: FEMA Regional Flood Study Sequencing by County – March 2007 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 LEGENDMap of Preliminary DFIRMs Source: FEMA Regional Flood Study Sequencing by County – March 2007 PAGE 2 Massachusetts MMMS – Business Plan Summary Data based on information provided by the Department of Conservation and Recreation dated July 2006 and other FEMA sources for performing the mapping activities of the FHMP, with continuing support from other FHMP staff. SIGNIFICANT COOPERATIVE EFFORTS WITH PARTNERS In addition to the FHMP, other state and local partners have had involvement in the Map Modernization process. There have been three Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) agreements developed in Massachusetts. Although not an official CTP, the Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS) has contributed to the mapping effort by providing orthophoto base mapping that meets FEMA’s standards, and it is expected that they will continue to contribute these products. The City of Quincy was an active participant in their recent FIRM update, which went effective on May 16, 2006. IMPEDIMENTS TO MAP ADOPTION The countywide approach is problematic as it relates to the map adoption process. Most National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participating communities in Massachusetts have adopted the NFIP regulations as a floodplain district within their zoning bylaw. Under state law, changes to district boundaries within a city’s zoning can be adopted by the City Council, however changes to district boundaries within a town’s zoning can only be made by a town meeting vote. While City Council hearings and meetings may occur monthly or more frequently, town meetings only occur once or twice a year. The result is a very small window for map adoption within the town government structure. Generally, town meetings occur between March and June. Warrant articles must be completed in many towns two to three months in advance of the meeting date. There is the potential for the gap between the date when the first town meeting warrant is due and the last town meeting to be larger than six months. If this is the case, coordinating the issue date of the Letter of Final Determination will be a major challenge. If the window is missed, the revised maps may have to wait for a year before they can be adopted. The State NFIP Coordinator is currently working with the Attorney General’s Office to determine possible ways to alleviate the problem. The legality of two potential solutions is being explored. One is to move the NFIP regulations out of zoning and into a town’s general bylaws. This would allow for the maps to be adopted without going through town meeting. They could be adopted at any time by the Board of Selectmen or Town Council. The other is to incorporate automatic adoption language into the bylaw. If one or both of these potential solutions becomes reality, it will aid in the adoption of future map revisions. UNMET NEEDS OF MASSACHUSETTS' MAP MODERNIZATION PROGRAM Due to the limited amount of Federal Map Modernization funds allocated to Massachusetts, there is an ongoing need to identify and develop partnerships to leverage available funds. However, the difference in governmental structure, as compared to other areas of the country, is not as conducive to partnership development, especially under the countywide approach. As a result, unlike most of the country, there are no county revenue sources that can contribute to Map Modernization. Additionally, there are no county engineering staffs, county GIS staffs, or county flood control districts that can produce actual mapping products. As a result, there is no obvious single entity to act as a partner in a countywide mapping update. LEVEE STRATEGY Research done by the Mapping Coordinator revealed that the effective FIRMs in at least 13 Massachusetts communities credit levees with providing 100 year flood protection. The levee certification requirements outlined in FEMA Procedure Memorandum No. 34 will put the 100 year protection credit of many of the levees in doubt. It is anticipated that levee certification will become a major issue, especially in Hampden County, where the largest levee system is located. The Mapping Coordinator is prepared to work with FEMA, the impacted communities, and other entities to determine if and how levees can be certified and credited with protection, and provide education and outreach efforts to those impacted if the levees cannot be certified and will not be credited with providing protection. MMMS ACTIVITIES PLANNED FY07 • Tracking the status of ongoing mapping projects • Providing input on budgeting, prioritization, and sequencing • Update and maintenance of the state business plan • Review of preliminary map products • Participation in scoping and input of state known mapping needs • Coordination on levee issues • General coordination on mapping issues throughout the process • Coordinating on the post-preliminary process • Outreach to communities and the public on the appeals process • Determining LFD dates that will work with town meeting schedules • Assisting communities in making required revisions to their ordinance • Outreach and education efforts to communities and the general public relating to datum conversions, Digital FIRM training, impacts of map updates on flood insurance and building codes, levees and seawalls, the map production process, Letters of Map Change, and other educational needs that are identified. MHIP Version 2.5 http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2636