FINAL DRAFT National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Progra mmati c BIOLOG ICAL Eval uati on for Listed Anadr omous Sal monid s IN wASHINGTON STATE Prepared by: EDAW, Inc. Seatle , Washin gton Prepared for: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE BOTHELL, WAshin gton febr uar y 2006 www.edaw.com Community Name Initial FIRM Date ALGONA, CITY OF 19780525 ANACORTES, CITY OF 20030917 ARLINGTON, CITY OF 19831116 AUBURN, CITY OF 19810601 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, CITY OF 19860205 BELLEVUE, CITY OF 19781201 BELLINGHAM, CITY OF 19820902 BLACK DIAMOND, TOWN OF 19791030 BLAINE, CITY OF 19790716 BONNEY LAKE, CITY OF 19830426 BOTHELL, CITY OF 19820601 BREMERTON, CITY OF 19790815 BRIER, CITY OF 19840924 BUCKLEY, CITY OF 19800501 BUCODA, TOWN OF 19810902 BURIEN, CITY OF 19940930 BURLINGTON, CITY OF 19850103 CARNATION, CITY OF 19800304 CLALLAM COUNTY * 19801105 CONCRETE, TOWN OF 19820802 COUPEVILLE, TOWN OF 19950816 COVINGTON, CITY OF 20010419 DARRINGTON, TOWN OF 19850819 DES MOINES, CITY OF 19800515 DUVALL, TOWN OF 19800604 EDGEWOOD, CITY OF 19870819 EDMONDS, CITY OF 19780808 ENUMCLAW, CITY OF 19890929 EVERETT, CITY OF 19780403 EVERSON, CITY OF 19820802 FEDERAL WAY, CITY OF 19950516 FERNDALE, TOWN OF 19830601 FIFE, CITY OF 19801105 FIRCREST, CITY OF 19820203 GIG HARBOR, TOWN OF 19810902 GOLD BAR, TOWN OF 19831201 HAMILTON, TOWN OF 19811201 INDEX, TOWN OF 19831201 ISLAND COUNTY * 19811201 ISSAQUAH, CITY OF 19800501 JEFFERSON COUNTY * 19820719 KENMORE, CITY OF 19780929 KENT, CITY OF 19810401 KING COUNTY* 19780929 KIRKLAND, CITY OF 19810615 KITSAP COUNTY * 19800515 LACEY, CITY OF 19800716 LAKE FOREST PARK, CITY OF 19800215 LAKE STEVENS, CITY OF 19890417 LAKEWOOD, CITY OF 19870819 LANGLEY, CITY OF 19840924 LYMAN, TOWN OF 19820719 LYNDEN, CITY OF 19821103 LYNNWOOD, CITY OF 19850605 MARYSVILLE, CITY OF 19840215 MASON COUNTY* 19880517 MEDINA, CITY OF 19790316 MERCER ISLAND, CITY OF 19970630 MILTON, CITY OF 19820426 MONROE, CITY OF 19831201 MORTON, CITY OF 19791204 MOUNT VERNON, CITY OF 19850103 MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, CITY OF 19850819 MUKILTEO, CITY OF 19860219 NOOKSACK, CITY OF 19820902 NORMANDY PARK, CITY OF 19771102 NORTH BEND, CITY OF 19840801 OAK HARBOR, CITY OF 19800115 OAKVILLE, TOWN OF 19850619 OLYMPIA, CITY OF 19820217 ORTING, TOWN OF 19850927 PACIFIC, CITY OF 19801202 PIERCE COUNTY* 19870819 PORT ANGELES, CITY OF 19800801 PORT ORCHARD, CITY OF 19791115 PORT TOWNSEND, CITY OF 19820315 POULSBO, CITY OF 19790702 PUYALLUP, CITY OF 19800815 REDMOND, CITY OF 19790201 RENTON, CITY OF 19810505 ROY, TOWN OF 19820426 SAMMAMISH, CITY OF 19991108 SAN JUAN COUNTY* 19910301 SEATTLE, CITY OF 19770719 SEDRO WOOLLEY, CITY OF 19820705 SEQUIM, CITY OF 19760211 SHELTON, CITY OF 19831201 SHORELINE, CITY OF 19780929 SKAGIT COUNTY * 19850103 SKYKOMISH, TOWN OF 19810702 SNOHOMISH COUNTY * 19840315 SNOHOMISH, CITY OF 19831116 SNOQUALMIE, CITY OF 19840705 SOUTH PRAIRIE, TOWN OF 19811215 STANWOOD, CITY OF 19831116 STEILACOOM, TOWN OF 19820719 SULTAN, CITY OF 19830930 SUMAS, CITY OF 19850515 SUMNER,CITY OF 19801216 TACOMA, CITY OF 19831201 TENINO, CITY OF 19800604 THURSTON COUNTY * 19821201 TUKWILA, CITY OF 19810803 TUMWATER, CITY OF 19800801 UNIVERSITY PLACE, CITY OF 19870819 WHATCOM COUNTY * 19770930 WILKESON, TOWN OF 19820301 WOODINVILLE, CITY OF 19950516 YELM, CITY OF 19990616 Table C-1. Lifecycle Timing of Snake River Chinook. Snake River Chinook J F M A M J J A S O N D Snake -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Palouse -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Tucannon -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Grand Rhonde -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1998 NMFS Status Review for Chinook Salmon (Myers et al. 1998) Spring/Summer-run Only Fall-run Only Table C-2. Lifecycle Timing of Puget Sound Chinook. Puget Sound Chinook J F M A M J J A S O N D Samish/Nooksack -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Upper Skagit & Tribs -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Lower Skagit & Tribs -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Lower Sauk -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Upper Sauk -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Skagit/Suiattle/Cascade -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Table continues on next page Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1998 NMFS Status Review for Chinook Salmon (Myers et al. 1998) Table C-2. Lifecycle Timing of Puget Sound Chinook (Continued). Puget Sound Chinook J F M A M J J A S O N D Stillaguamish -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Elwha/Morse Creek -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration White River (Puyallup) -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Wallace -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Snohomish -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Table continues on next page Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1998 NMFS Status Review for Chinook Salmon (Myers et al. 1998) Table C-2. Lifecycle Timing of Puget Sound Chinook (Continued). Puget Sound Chinook J F M A M J J A S O N D Green-Duwamish Basin Summer/Fall -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Lake Washington-Cedar Basin Summer/Fall -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Nisqually River -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1998 NMFS Status Review for Chinook Salmon (Myers et al. 1998) Table C-3. Lifecycle Timing of Lower Columbia River Spring/Fall Chinook. Lower Columbia River Spring/Fall Chinook J F M A M J J A S O N D Cowlitz Spring/Fall -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Kalama Spring/Fall -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Lewis Spring/Fall -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Grays River -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Skamokawa/Germany -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Elochoman/Abernathy -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Coweeman/South Fork Toutle -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Table C-4. Lifecycle Timing of Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook. Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook J F M A M J J A S O N D Chiwawa -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Nason Creek -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Little Wenatchee/White -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Entiat -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Methow/Twisp -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Table C-5. Lifecycle Timing of Upper Willamette River Chinook. Upper Willamette River Chinook J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development data unavailable -Juvenile Outmigration data unavailable Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Table C-6. Lifecycle Timing of Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Hood Canal Summer- Run Chum J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1997 NMFS Status Review for Chum Salmon (Johnson et al. 1997) Table C-7. Lifecycle Timing of Columbia River Chum. Columbia River Chum J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1997 NMFS Status Review for Chum Salmon (Johnson et al. 1997) Table C-8. Lifecycle Timing of Ozette Lake Sockeye. Ozette Lake Sockeye J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Table C-9. Lifecycle Timing of Snake River Sockeye Snake River Sockeye J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Table C-10. Lifecycle Timing of Upper Columbia River Steelhead Upper Columbia River Steelhead J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1996 NMFS Status Review for Steelhead (Busby et al. 1996) Table C-11. Lifecycle Timing of Snake River Basin Steelhead Snake River Basin Steelhead J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1996 NMFS Status Review for Steelhead (Busby et al. 1996) Table C-12. Lifecycle Timing of Lower Columiba River Steelhead Lower Columbia River Steelhead J F M A M J J A S O N D Cowlitz to Toutle -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Kalama to Washougal -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1996 NMFS Status Review for Steelhead (Busby et al. 1996) Table C-13. Lifecycle Timing of Middle Columbia River Steelhead Middle Columiba River Steelhead J F M A M J J A S O N D Wind to Klickitat -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Walla Walla to Touchet -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1996 NMFS Status Review for Steelhead (Busby et al. 1996) Table C-14. Lifecycle Timing of Upper Willamette River Steelhead. Upper Willamette River Steelhead J F M A M J J A S O N D -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development data unavailable -Juvenile Rearing -Juvenile Outmigration data unavailable Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1996 NMFS Status Review for Steelhead (Busby et al. 1996) Table C-15. Lifecycle Timing of Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Choho J F M A M J J A S O N D Nooksack -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Skagit -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Stillaguamish/Snohomish -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Lk Wash/Green/Soos -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Hood Canal Tribs -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Strait of Juan de Fuca -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Nisqually/Puyallup -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Table C-16. Lifecycle Timing of Lower Columbia/Southwest Washington Coho Columbia/Southwest Washington Coho J F M A M J J A S O N D Clackamas River (ESU-defined potential native population) -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Grays River -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Skamokawa/Elochoman -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Abernathy/Germany -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Cowlitz River -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Coweeman/Toutle/Green -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Kalama/Lewis/Salmon -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Washougal -Upstream Migration -Spawning -Intragravel Development -Juvenile Outmigration Souce: Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group (2003) Edited per 1995 NMFS Status Review for Coho (Weitkamp et al. 1995) REGION X FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE WASHINGTON MODEL (REVISED 5/13/2004) Close to 300 towns, cities, counties, and tribes within the State of Washington participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a condition of participation in the NFIP, communities are required to adopt and enforce a flood hazard reduction ordinance that meets the minimum requirements of the NFIP; however, there are occasionally additional requirements identified by State law that are more restrictive. In these cases, FEMA will require that communities meet those standards as well. Although there is no specific prescribed ordinance that can be adopted across the country that meets all requirements for floodplain development, this model identifies the basic requirements, and cross references them to appropriate Federal CFR or State WAC citations (RCW 86.16 WA Floodplain Management law). It also encourages Community Officials to consider the direct insurance implications of certain building standards that, if adopted, can reduce (or increase) annual flood insurance premiums for local citizens. This ordinance, as developed by FEMA and the WA Department of Ecology, supercedes previous versions and includes all the minimum standards required as a condition of participation in the NFIP. It will be used by FEMA and State staff as the basis for providing technical assistance and compliance reviews during the Community Assistance Contact (CAC) and Community Assistance Visit (CAV) process to ensure that federal and state law are met. The model identifies the basic minimum federal regulation requirements that must be contained in a local flood ordinance as well as suggestions for stronger measures, but notes that these measures are recommended, not required. Additionally, it outlines several specific floodplain development practices and regulations that can reduce insurance premiums (highlighted). Adopting this model flood hazard reduction ordinance verbatim can ensure compliance with FEMA; however, it should be emphasized that its adoption is not a mandatory requirement per NFIP regulation. Some sections of this document are included for clarity and are not required by federal or state law. For instance, as indicated in SECTION 1: STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES, it is not mandatory to adopt this entire section, but by doing so, it will make your ordinance more legally enforceable. This document can also serve as a foundation upon which communities can craft their own additional measures. The ordinance can be modified to accommodate local standards, provided they are not less restrictive than the minimum standards identified on this model. Areas on the model that exceed those minimum standards are clearly marked. The model ordinance is in a modular format. The basic model is available separately, and the following attachments can be provided if they fit a community’s status, or if they are requested: APPENDIX A: ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH SHALLOW FLOODING IDENTIFIED AS AN AO ZONES ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) APPENDIX B: ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITIES WITH COASTAL FLOODING IDENTIFIED AS A V ZONE AND AN ORDINANCE COMPLIANT WITH 44 CFR 60.3(E) APPENDIX C: FLOOD HAZARD PREVENTION AND FISH HABITAT PROTECTION ORDINANCE (Not yet complete) APPENDIX D: OTHER HIGHER REGULATORY STANDARDS (Not yet complete) If you have any questions concerning this ordinance or participation in the NFIP, please contact the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at our Regional Office at (425) 487-4678. SECTION 1.0 - STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE, AND OBJECTIVES (Not mandatory to adopt section 1.0) 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION The Legislature of the State of Washington has delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the ______ of ______, does ordain as follows: 1.2 FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The flood hazard areas of ______ are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss of life and property, health, and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2) These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses that are inadequately floodproofed, elevated, or otherwise protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss. 1.3 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; reduce the annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed: 1) To protect human life and health; 2) To minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; 3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; 4) To minimize prolonged business interruptions; 5) To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; 6) To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; 7) To ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; 8) To ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. 1.4 METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES In order to accomplish its purposes, this ordinance includes methods and provisions for: 1) Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; 2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; 3) Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters; 4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and 5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers that unnaturally divert floodwaters or may increase flood hazards in other areas. SECTION 2.0 – DEFINITIONS (44 CFR 59.1, not mandatory to adopt all definitions as shown) Terms with 1 asterisk trigger a specific building requirement and must be adopted. Terms with 2 asterisks are directly related to insurance and are not mandatory to adopt. Unless specifically defined below, terms or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. APPEAL: a request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of this ordinance or a request for a variance. AREA OF SHALLOW FLOODING: designated as AO, or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). AO zones have base flood depths that range from one to three feet above the natural ground; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and, velocity flow may be evident. AO is characterized as sheet flow; AH indicates ponding, and is shown with standard base flood elevations. AREA OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD: is the land in the flood plain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on maps always includes the letters A or V. BASE FLOOD: the flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the “100-year flood”). Designated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps by the letters A or V. * BASEMENT: means any area of the building having its floor sub-grade (below ground level) on all sides. BREAKAWAY WALL: means a wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces, without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA: means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as Zone V1-30, VE or V. CRITICAL FACILITY: means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include (but are not limited to) schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and installations which produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. * DEVELOPMENT: means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. ** ELEVATION CERTIFICATE: means the official form (FEMA Form 81-31) used to track development, provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management ordinances, and determine the proper insurance premium rate with Section B completed by Community Officials. ELEVATED BUILDING: means for insurance purposes, a non-basement building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns. EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the adopted floodplain management regulations. EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). FLOOD or FLOODING: means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: 1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters and/or 2) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): means the official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS): means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. FLOODWAY: means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. * LOWEST FLOOR: means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance found at Section 5.2- 1(2), (i.e. provided there are adequate flood ventilation openings). MANUFACTURED HOME: means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include a “recreational vehicle.” MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. NEW CONSTRUCTION: means structures for which the “start of construction” commenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance. NEW MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of adopted floodplain management regulations. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: means a vehicle, 1) Built on a single chassis; 2) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; 3) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and 4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. START OF CONSTRUCTION: includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. STRUCTURE: a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground. * SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. * SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: 1) Before the improvement or repair is started; or 2) If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition “substantial improvement” is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term can exclude: 1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct pre-cited existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been previously identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or 2) Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. VARIANCE: means a grant of relief from the requirements of this ordinance that permits construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance. WATER DEPENDENT: means a structure for commerce or industry that cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. SECTION 3.0 – GENERAL PROVISIONS (Mandatory adoption requirements are listed per sub-section) 3.1 LANDS TO WHICH THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES (44 CFR 59.22(a)) This ordinance shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of ______. 3.2 BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD (44 FR60.3(c)(1)(d)(2)) The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study for (__community name__) “ dated (___), (20__), and any revisions thereto*, with an accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and any revisions thereto*, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The Flood Insurance Study and the FIRM are on file at (__community address__). The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section 4.3-2 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section 4.3-2. * In some communities, the phrase “and any revisions thereto” is not considered legally binding and should not be adopted. 3.3 PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE (Not mandatory) No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. Violations of the provisions of this ordinance by failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions), shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined not more than _____ or imprisoned for not more than __ days, or both, for each violation, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the _____ from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. 3.4 ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS (Not mandatory) This ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. 3.5 INTERPRETATION (Not mandatory) In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, all provisions shall be: 1) Considered as minimum requirements; 2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and, 3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State statutes. 3.6 WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY (Not mandatory) The degree of flood protection required by this ordinance is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This ordinance does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of ______, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. SECTION 4.0 – ADMINISTRATION 4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 4.1-1 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED (44 CFR 60.3(b)(1)) A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2. The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in the “Definitions,” and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in the “Definitions.” 4.1-2 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (Not Mandatory; however example permits are available from FEMA/DOE for review or use) Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the ______ and may include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required: 1) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures recorded on a current elevation certificate (FF 81-31) with Section B completed by the local official. 2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed; 3) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in Section 5.2-2; 4) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. 4.2 DESIGNATION OF THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR (44 CFR 59.22(b)(1)) (Local Administrator) is hereby appointed to administer and implement this ordinance by granting or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provisions. 4.3 DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR (Not mandatory) Duties of the (Local Administrator) shall include, but not be limited to: 4.3-1 PERMIT REVIEW 1) Review all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this ordinance have been satisfied. (Not mandatory) 2) Review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required. (44 CFR 60.3(a)(2)) 3) Review all development permits to determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of Section 5.4(1) are met. (Not mandatory, but essential to enforce Washington’s floodway law.) 4.3-2 USE OF OTHER BASE FLOOD DATA (IN A AND V ZONES) (44 CFR 60.3(b)(4)) When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V Zones) in accordance with Section 3.2, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD, the (Local Administrator) shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State or other source, in order to administer Sections 5.2, SPECIFIC STANDARDS, and 5.4 FLOODWAYS. 4.3-3 INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED AND MAINTAINED (The following language is required and should be adopted verbatim per 44 CFR) 1) Where base flood elevation data is provided through the Flood Insurance Study, FIRM, or required as in Section 4.3-2, obtain and record the actual (as-built) elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(i)) Recorded on a current elevation certificate (FF 81-31) with Section B completed by the local official. 2) For all new or substantially improved floodproofed nonresidential structures where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or as required in Section 4.3-2: i) Obtain and record the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(ii)) ii) Maintain the floodproofing certifications required in Section 4.1-2(3) (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(iii)) 3) Maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this ordinance. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(5)(iii)) 4.3-4 ALTERATION OF WATERCOURSES (44 CFR 60.3(b)(6)) 1) Notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration. 2) Require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished. 4.3-5 INTERPRETATION OF FIRM BOUNDARIES (This section is not required, but if the Local Administrators are performing this task on a regular basis, it should be adopted.) Make interpretations where needed, as to exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazards (e.g. where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation. Such appeals shall be granted consistent with the standards of Section 60.6 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 59-76). 4.4 CONDITIONS FOR VARIANCES (Excerpts summarized from 44 CFR 60.6(a)(1-7) Communities are encouraged to adopt standards equal to or more restrictive than 44 CFR 60.6(a)(1-7) or use existing codes that meet or exceed these standards. FEMA may review a community’s findings justifying the granting of variances, and if that review indicates a pattern inconsistent with the objectives of sound floodplain management, FEMA may take appropriate action under 44 CFR 59.24(b). 1) Generally, the only condition under which a variance from the elevation standard may be issued is for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a small or irregularly shaped lot contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. As the lot size increases the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. 2) Variances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. 3) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 4) Variances shall only be issued upon: i) A showing of good and sufficient cause; ii) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; iii) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. 5) Variances as interpreted in the National Flood Insurance Program are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from flood elevations should be quite rare. 6) Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances to allow a lesser degree of floodproofing than watertight or dry-floodproofing, where it can be determined that such action will have low damage potential, complies with all other variance criteria except 4.4-2(1), and otherwise complies with Sections 5.1-1, 5.1-3, and 5.1-4 of the GENERAL STANDARDS. 7) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the permitted structure will be built with its lowest floor below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk. SECTION 5.0 – PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION 5.1 GENERAL STANDARDS (Section 5.0 is required) In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required: 5.1-1 ANCHORING (44 CFR 60.3(a)(b)) 1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure. (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)(i)) 2) All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. (44 CFR 60.3(b)(8)). For more detailed information, refer to guidebook, FEMA-85, “Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas.” 5.1-2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)(ii-iv)) 1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. 2) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 3) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Locating such equipment below the base flood elevation may cause annual flood insurance premiums to be increased. 5.1-3 UTILITIES (44 CFR 60.3(a)(5)(6)) 1) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; 2) Water wells shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway* 3) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters; 4) Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. * FEMA endorses the more restrictive WA floodway standard identified in WAC 173-160-171 5.1-4 SUBDIVISION PROPOSALS (44 CFR 60.3(a)(4)(b)(3)) 1) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; 2) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; 3) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; 4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is less). 5.1-5 REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMITS (44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)) Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (Section 4.3-2), applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates. 5.2 SPECIFIC STANDARDS (44 CFR 60.3(c)(1)) In all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in Section 3.2, BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD, or Section 4.3-2, USE OF OTHER BASE FLOOD DATA. Additional standards were clarified in FEMA Technical Bulletin 11-01 to allow crawlspace construction for buildings located in the special flood hazard areas; however, adopting this provision can result in a 20% increase in flood insurance premiums. The following provisions are required: 5.2-1 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (44 CFR 60.3(c)(2)(5)) 1) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more* above the base flood elevation (BFE). * Minimum FEMA standards require the lowest floor to be elevated “to or above” the BFE; however, adding an additional foot of freeboard increases safety and can reduce insurance premiums by as much as 30%. Adopting additional freeboard is strongly encouraged by FEMA. This note applies throughout the model ordinance. 2) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: i) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Foundation vent standards required by the IBC/IRC outside the floodplain do not meet this standard and are often inadvertently permitted. Insurance rates reflect an “all or nothing” standard, meaning, partially ventilated crawlspaces may be subject to an additional loading fee of 20-25% attached to the annual insurance premium. 5.2-2 NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (44 CFR 60.3(c)(3)(4)) New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more* above the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: 1) Be floodproofed so that below one foot or more above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; 2) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the official as set forth in Section 4.3-3(2); 4) Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in 5.2-1(2); * Applicants who are floodproofing nonresidential buildings should be notified that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level (e.g. a building floodproofed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below). Floodproofing the building an additional foot will reduce insurance premiums significantly. 5.2-3 MANUFACTURED HOMES (44 CFR 60.3(c)(6)(12)) 1) All manufactured homes in the floodplain to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above* the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. 5.2-4 RECREATIONAL VEHICLES (44 CFR 60.3(c)(14)) Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required to either: 1) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, (or) 2) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on wheels or jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or 3) Meet the requirements of 5.2-3 above and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. 5.3 AE AND A1-30 ZONES WITH BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS BUT NO FLOODWAYS (44 CFR 60.3(c)(10)) In areas with base flood elevations (but a regulatory floodway has not been designated), no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE on the community’s FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. 5.4 FLOODWAYS (Note the more restrictive language for floodway development per RCW 86.16) Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 3.2 are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters that can carry debris, and increase erosion potential, the following provisions apply: 1) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. (44 CFR 60.3(d)(3)) 2) Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways*, except for (i) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (ii) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (A) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (B) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent. * FEMA endorses the more restrictive WA floodway standard adopted in WAC 173-158-070. 3) If Section 5.4(1) is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Section 5.0, PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION. 5.7 CRITICAL FACILITY (Not mandatory) Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (100-year floodplain). Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE or to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. Floodplain Management Criteria Associated with Each Level of Community-based Analysis Chapter and Section Level of Analysis Performed (Summary) Minimum Criteria 44 CFR §60.3 (a) No SFHA defined No water surface elevation data No regulatory floodway or coastal high hazard area Community has indicated the presence of such hazards .. Require permits for all proposed construction or other development in the community, including the placement of manufactured homes, so that it may determine whether such construction or other development is proposed within flood-prone areas; .. Review proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal and State law, including section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334; .. Review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a proposed building site is in a flood-prone area, all new construction and substantial improvements shall (i) be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including effects on buoyancy, (ii) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, (iii) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damages, and (iv) be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. .. Review subdivision proposals and other proposed new development, including manufactured home parks or subdivisions to determine whether such proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development is in a flood-prone area, any such proposals shall be reviewed to assure that (i) all such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood-prone area, (ii) all public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (iii) adequate drainage is provided to reduce hazards; .. Require within flood-prone areas new and replacement water supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and .. Require within flood-prone areas (i) new and replacement sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and (ii) onsite waste disposal systems to be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 44 CFR §60.3 (b) SFHA (A zones) designated, by publication of FHBM or FIRM No water surface elevation data No regulatory floodway or coastal high hazard area .. Require permits for all proposed construction and other development including the placement of manufactured homes, within Zone A on the community’s FHBM or FIRM; .. Require the application of the standards in paragraphs (a) (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of this section to development within Zone A on the community’s FHBM or FIRM; .. Require that all new subdivision proposals and other proposed development (including proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions) greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is lesser, include within such proposals base flood elevation (BFE) data; .. Obtain, review and reasonably utilize any BFE and floodway data available from a Federal, State, or other source, including data developed pursuant to paragraph (b)(c) of this section, as criteria for requiring that new construction, substantial improvements, or other development in Zone A on the community’s FHBM or FIRM meet the standards in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(12), (c)(14), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section; .. Where BFE data are utilized, within Zone A on the community’s FHBM or FIRM: o (i) Obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new and substantially improved structures, and o (ii) Obtain, if the structure has been flood-proofed in accordance with the paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was flood-proofed, and o (iii) Maintain a record of all such information with the official designated by the community under §59.22 in (a)(9)(iii); .. Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the State Coordinating Officer prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit copies of such notifications to the Administrator; .. Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained; .. Require that all manufactured homes to be placed within Zone A on a community’s FHBM or FIRM shall be installed using methods and practices to minimize flood damage. For the purposes of this requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable State and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. 44 CFR §60.3 (c) Final flood elevation for one or more SFHA on the community’s FIRM Other SFHAs without BFEs designated on the FIRM No regulatory floodway or coastal high hazard area .. Require the standards of paragraph (b) of this section within all A1-30 zones, AE zones, A zones, AH zones, and AO zones, on the community’s FIRM; .. Require that all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures within Zones A1-30, AE and AH zones on the community’s FIRM have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level , unless the community is granted an exception by the Administrator for the allowance of basements in accordance with §60.6 (b) or (c); .. Require that all new construction and substantial improvement of non-residential structures within Zones A1-30, AE, and AH zones on the community’s firm (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level or, (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; .. Provide that where a non-residential structure is intended to be made watertight below the base flood level, (i) a registered professional engineer or architect shall develop and/or review structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the applicable provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(ii) or (c)(8)(ii) of this section, and (ii) a record of such certificates which includes the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such structures are flood-proofed shall be maintained with the official designated by the community under §59.22(a)(9)(iii); .. Require, for all new construction and substantial improvements, that fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. .. Require that manufactured homes are placed or substantially improved within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community’s FIRM on sites o (i) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, o (ii) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision, o (iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or o (iv) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred “substantial damage” as the result of a flood, be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist floatation collapse and lateral movement. .. Require within any AO zone on the community’s FIRM that all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified); .. Require within any AO zone on the community’s FIRM that all new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures (i) have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least two feet if no depth number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely flood-proofed to that level to meet the flood-proofing standard specified in §60.3(c)(3)(ii); .. Require within any A99 zone on a community’s FIRM the standards of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4)(i) and (b)(5) through (b)(9) of this section; .. Require until a regulatory floodway is designated, that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE on the community’s FIRM unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. .. Require within Zones AH and AO, adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures. .. Require that manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the community’s FIRM that are not subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)(6) of this section be elevated so that either o (i) The lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the BFE, or o (ii) The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist floatation, collapse, and lateral movement. .. Notwithstanding any other provisions of §60.3, a community may approve certain development in Zones A1-30, AE, and AH, on the community’s FIRM which increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM revision, fulfills the requirements for such a revision as established under the provisions of §65.12, and receives the approval of the Administrator. .. Require that recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zone A1-30, AH, and AE on the community’s FIRM either o Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, o Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or o Meet the permit requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the elevation and anchoring requirements for “manufactured homes” in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. 44 CFR §60.3 (d) Final BFEs within Zones A1-30 and/or AE zones If appropriate, designated AO zones, AH zones, A99 zones, and A zones Regulatory floodway designated .. Meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (14) of this section; .. Select and adopt a regulatory floodway based on the principle that the area chosen for the regulatory floodway must be designed to carry the waters of the base flood without increasing water surface elevation of that flood more than one foot at any point; .. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; .. Notwithstanding any other provisions of §60.3, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision, fulfills the requirements for such revisions as established under the provisions of §65.12, and receives approval from the Administrator. 44 CFR §60.3 (e) Final BFEs within Zones A1-30 and/or AE zones If appropriate, designated AO zones, AH zones, A99 zones, and A zones Coastal high hazard areas designated (Zones V1-30, VE, and/or V) .. Meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (14) of this section; .. Within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on a community’s FIRM, (i) obtain the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and columns) of all new and substantially improved structures, and whether or not such structures contain a basement, and (ii) maintain a record of all such information with the official designated by the community under §59.22(a)(9)(iii); .. Provide that all new construction within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM is located landward of the reach of mean high tide; .. Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements in Zones V1-30 and VE, and also Zone V is BFE data is available, on the community’s FIRM, are elevated on pilings and columns so that (i) the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the base flood level; and (ii) the pile or column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components. Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base flood. Wind loading values used shall be those required by applicable State or local building standards. A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop or review the structural design, specifications and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design and methods of construction used are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. .. Provide that all new construction and substantial improvements within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM have the space below the lowest floor either free of obstruction or constructed with non-supporting breakaway walls, open wood lattice-work, or insect screening intended to collapse under wind and water loads without collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. For the purposes of this section, a breakaway wall shall have a design safe loading resistance of not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per square foot. (either by design or when so required by local or State codes) may be permitted only if a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that the designs proposed meet the following conditions: o (i) Breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water load less than that which would occur during the base flood; and, o (ii) The elevated portion of the building and supporting foundation system shall not be subject to collapse, displacement, or other structural damage due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components (structural and non-structural). [See conditions for wind and water loads in (e)(4).] .. Prohibit the use of fill for structural support of buildings within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM; .. Prohibit man-made alterations of sand dunes and mangrove stands within Zones V1- 30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM which would increase potential flood damage. .. Require that manufactured homes placed or substantially improved within Zones V1- 30, V, and VE on the community’s FIRM on sites o (i) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision, o (ii) In a new manufactured home park or subdivision, o (iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, o (iv) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured home has incurred “substantial damage” as the result of a flood, meet the standards of paragraphs (e)(2) through (7) of this section and that manufactured homes placed or substantially improved on other sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones V1-30, V, and VE on the community’s FIRM meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(12) of this section. .. Require that recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones V1-30, V, and VE on the community’s FIRM either o Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, o Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or o Meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (e)(2) through (7) of this section. NOAA Fisheries Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for Freshwater Systems Pathway Indicator Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Quality Temperature 50 to 57 °F Spawning 57 to 60 °F Migration/Rearing 57 to 64 °F Spawning > 60 °F Migration/rearing >64 °F Sediment/Turbidity (spawning habitat) <12% fines (<0.85mm) in gravel Turbidity low 12 to 17% west side 12 to 20% east side Turbidity moderate >17% west side >20% east side, fines at surface or depth in spawning habitat Turbidity high Chemical Contamination and Nutrients Low levels of chemical contamination from agriculture, stormwater runoff, industrial, etc., no excess nutrients, no CWA 303d designated reaches. Moderate levels of chemical contamination from agriculture, stormwater runoff, industrial, etc., some excess nutrients, one CWA 303d designated reaches High levels of chemical contamination from agriculture, stormwater runoff, industrial, etc., high levels of excess nutrients, more than one CWA 303d designated reach. Habitat Access Physical Barriers Manmade barriers in watershed don not restrict upstream and downstream fish passage at all flows. Manmade barriers in watershed do not allow upstream and/or downstream fish passage at base/low flows. Manmade barriers in watershed do not allow upstream and/or downstream fish passage at a range of flows. Substrate Dominant substrate is gravel or cobble (interstitial spaces clear) or embeddedness <20%. Gravel or cobble is subdominant or if dominant, embeddedness is 20 – 30%. Gravel or cobble is subdominant or if dominant, embeddedness >30%. Habitat Access (cont.) Large Woody Debris Coastal WA: >80 pieces/mile >24 in dia. >50 ft length. East side: >20 pieces/mile >12 in. dia. > 35 ft length and adequate sources of woody debris recruitment in riparian areas. Currently meets standards for properly functioning, but lacks potential sources from riparian areas of woody debris recruitment to maintain that standard. Does not meet standards for properly functioning and lacks potential large woody material recruitment. Pool Frequency Meets LWM standards Pool frequency in a reach closely approximates: Meets pool frequency standards but large woody material recruitment inadequate to maintain pools over time. Does not meet pool frequency standards Channel width (ft) 5 10 15 20 25 50 75 100 # pools/mi 184 96 70 56 47 26 23 18 Pool Quality Pools> 1m deep (holding pools) with good cover and cool water, minor reduction of pool volume by fine sediment. Few deeper pools >1m deep present or inadequate cover/temperature, moderate reduction of pool volume by fine sediment No deep pools >1m and inadequate cover/temperature, major reduction of pool volume by fine sediment. Off Channel Habitat Numerous ponds, oxbows and backwater areas with cover and low energy off-channel areas (ponds oxbows, etc.) Some ponds, oxbows, and backwater areas with cover but side channels with high energy. Few or no ponds, oxbows or backwaters, no offchannel ponds. Refugia Habitat refugia exist and are buffered by intact riparian reserves. Existing refugia are sufficient in size, number and connectivity to maintain viable populations or subpopulations. Habitat refugia exists but are not adequately buffered (by intact riparian reserves) existing refugia are insufficient in size, number, and connectivity to maintain viable populations or sub-populations. Adequate habitat refugia do not exist. Channel Conditions and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio <10 10 to 12 >12 Streambank Condition >90% stable (on average <10% of banks are eroding) 80 to 90% stable. <80% stable. Floodplain Connectivity Off-channel areas are frequently hydrologically linked to main channel, over bank flows occur and maintain wetland functions, riparian vegetation and succession. Reduced linkage of wetland, floodplains and riparian areas to main channel; overbank flows are reduced relative to historic frequency as evidenced by moderate Degradation of wetland function, riparian vegetation and succession. Severe reduction in hydrological connectivity between off-channel wetland, floodplains, and riparian areas; wetland extent drastically reduced and riparian vegetation/succession altered significantly. Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows Watershed hydrograph indicates peak flow, base flow and flow timing characteristics comparable to an undisturbed watershed of similar size, geology, and geography. Some evidence of altered peak flow, baseflow, and/or flow timing relative to an undisturbed watershed of similar size, geology, and geography. Pronounced changes in peak flow, baseflow, and flow timing relative to an undisturbed watershed of similar size geology and geography. Increase in Drainage Network Zero or minimum increase in drainage network density due to roads or human caused disturbance. Low to moderate increased in drainage network density due to human caused disturbance. Greater than moderate increase in drainage network density doe to human caused disturbance (e.g., >20 to 25% increase). Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location <2mi/mi2, no valley bottom roads. 2 to 3 mi/mi2, some valley bottom roads. >3 mi/mi2, many valley bottom roads. Disturbance History <15% (entire watershed) with no concentration of disturbance in unstable areas, and/or refugia and/or riparian area and for NWFP area (except AMA), =15% retention of LSOG in watershed. <15% (entire watershed) but disturbance concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area and for NWFP area (except AMA), =15% retention of LSOG in watershed. >15% (entire watershed) and disturbance concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area, does not meet NWFP standard for LSOG retention. Riparian Reserve Riparian corridor provides adequate shade, large woody material recruitment, habitat protection and connectivity in all sub-watersheds and buffers. Riparian corridor is at least 80% intact. Greater than 50% of riparian vegetation is composed of endemic spp. Riparian corridor has a moderate loss of connectivity or function affecting shade, large woody material recruitment, etc. (70 – 80% intact). Between 25 and 50% of riparian vegetation is endemic. Riparian corridor is narrow, fragmented, poorly connected or provides inadequate protection of habitat (<70% intact). Less than 25% of riparian vegetation is endemic. Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for Salmonid Estuarine and Marine Habitat Pathway Indicator Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Quality Turbidity Low Moderate > 300 mg/l High >4,000 mg/l Dissolved Oxygen >6 mg/l 6 – 4.25 mg/l <4.25 mg/l Water Contamination/Nutrients Sediment Contamination Physical Habitat Elements Substrate/Armoring Natural conditions, mud or sand nearshore habitat Minor amounts of shoreline armoring. Extensive shoreline armoring. Depth and Slope Juveniles: shallow nearshore habitat, gentle slope. Adults: prefer deeper water Some bank steeping, loss of nearshore habitat. Steep banks and lack of shallow nearshore habitat. Extent of Estuarine Fill Extensive areas of estuarine wetland, limited fill. Moderate amounts of estuarine fill. Large amounts of estuarine fill. Physical Barriers (bridges, piers, floating structures, etc.) Natural conditions dominate, limited barriers to nearshore migration. Moderate amount of barriers to nearshore migration. Large areas of barriers to nearshore salmon migration. Current and Estuarine Mixing Patterns Dominated by natural conditions Alteration of natural conditions, effects on water quality, and habitat. Significant alternation of natural conditions. Biological Habitat Elements Juvenile Salmon Prey Availability (Benthic and Epibenthic) Diverse epibenthic community including Harpacticoid copepods Moderately diverse epibenthic community Low diversity of epibenthic community, lack of Harpacticoid copepods. Forage Fish Community Natural community including herring, sand lance, and perch. Moderate diversity of forage fish. Low abundance and diversity of forage fish. Aquatic Vegetation Diverse communities eelgrass, algae, and kelp Moderate diversity and abundance. Low diversity and abundance, lack of estuarine vegetation. Source: Beauchamp et al. 1983, Healy 1991, Healy 1982, and Reiser and Bjornn 1979. HISTORY OF THE 1 PERCENT CHANCE FLOOD STANDARD By Michael F. Robinson, DHS/FEMA The following discussion is based on information obtained from publications and documents in Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency files. Only limited information is available in those files on the history of the 1 percent chance flood prior to the establishment of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). I used the term “100-year flood standard” in place of “1 percent chance flood standard” where appropriate to reflect the terminology that was in use at the time. Evolution of the 100-year Flood Standard Prior to the 1950’s and 1960’s the primary governmental response to floods was structural flood control and the only flood standards in use were the design standards for those projects. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) used the “maximum probable flood” and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) used the “standard project flood” as their design standards. As these agencies began moving toward nonstructural floodplain management, there was a recognized need for a different standard that conveyed a level of flood risk that was more appropriate for land use planning and regulation by communities and more meaningful for individuals. Flood information was initially provided to communities and individuals based on the historical flood of record. However, it was generally recognized that this flood was more a matter of chance and did not adequately reflect the risk of flooding for an area. When TVA began its nonstructural community flood damage prevention program in 1953 it adopted as its standard a “regional flood” which was estimated to be on the order of a 50-year flood or greater. As USACE began to provide floodplain management assistance to communities under the Flood Control Act of 1960 it adopted an intermediate regional flood that approximated the 100-year flood as its standard for nonstructural activities. By the early 1960’s, both USACE and TVA recognized the need for a uniform standard and agreed on the 100-year standard. The few state floodplain management programs that had been established by the late 1960’s generally also adopted the 100-year standard. Several other standards were also in use during this period. The Connecticut Resources Commission began to use 5-7 times the mean annual flood as a standard. This equated to between a 35- and 150 year level of protection, depending on the watershed. Their reason for adopting this standard instead of the 100-year flood or some other frequency-based standard was that there was no uniform method for determining flood frequencies. Other standards that were in use at this time include the Soil Conservation Services (SCS) watershed protection program that used the 25-year flood in rural areas and the 100-year flood in urban areas and the U.S. Geological Survey that provided flood data based on the 50-year flood. USGS was initially reluctant to provide information on the 100-year flood because it required extrapolating data beyond experience. By the late 1960’s government agencies seemed to be coalescing around the 100-year standard as the standard for floodplain management. However, other standards were still in use and there was still no national standard that was agreed to by all agencies. Executive Order 11296 In August 1966, the President issued Executive Order 11296 on Evaluation of Flood Hazard in Locating Federally Owned or Financed Buildings, Roads, and Other Facilities and Disposing of Federal Lands and Properties. E.O. 11296 directs Federal agencies to take flooding into account when making decisions, but contains no standard level of protection. Federal agencies were to develop joint implementing procedures and regulations. This was a several year process and U.S. Water Resources Council did not issue final guidelines for evaluating flood hazards until May of 1972. These guidelines recommended that agencies use the 100-year flood as the “basic flood” to identify and evaluate flood hazards, but provided for the use of smaller and larger floods as appropriate. Adoption of the 100-year Standard by the National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 that established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) directed U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish floodplain management criteria and to designate flood hazard areas, but was silent on the standard that was to be used. HUD contracted with the University of Chicago’s Center for Urban Studies to conduct a seminar to make recommendations on the floodplain management criteria that HUD was to develop. This meeting, chaired by Gilbert White, was held from December 16-18, 1968 and is commonly referred to as the Chicago Seminar. The report recommends that the regulations apply in “that portion of the flood plain subject to inundation by the 100-year flood”. One of the work groups at the seminar had the responsibility of developing hydrologic standards for the identification of floodprone areas and for regulations. Nick Lally included his recollections of this group’s deliberations in a paper prepared for FEMA in1982. “The group deliberated about 1 ½ days and finally recommended that the 100-year flood would be a reasonable level to use in identifying flood prone areas. ...The recommended level was a compromise that all of those present were comfortable with and could support. There was no attempt to make any economic analysis due to the constraints of time.” One member of the group supported the 100-year standard, but felt that local deviations should be allowed. The consensus of the group was that, since the NFIP was a new program that was badly needed, it should not be made more complicated by allowing deviations from the 100-year standard. On February 27, 1969, HUD’s Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) published a proposed rule that contains the first floodplain management criteria developed for the NFIP. This proposed rule does not mention the 100-year flood or any other standard (it may have been too soon after the Chicago meeting for a decision on a standard to be made). The June 18, 1969 Final Rule defines “Floodplain having special flood hazards” as the 100-year floodplain for mapping purposes, but only requires that communities “should take into account the relation between first floor elevations and the anticipated level of the 100-year flood” in developing their floodplain management measures. It was not until the June 9, 1971 proposed rule and September 10,1971 final rule that the NFIP specifically tied the regulatory requirements of the program to the 100-year flood standard. With its adoption and use by the NFIP, the 100-year flood standard became the de facto national standard for floodplain management. Since most floodplain mapping was now being done in support of the NFIP and communities had to meet NFIP minimum requirements to be eligible for flood insurance, the 100-year flood standard soon replaced any other standards that were still in use. Senate Hearings on the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 The key issue at the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing on the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 was the NFIP’s adoption of the 100-year standard and not the imposition of the prohibitions on federal assistance in designated floodplains or the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement. Much of the opposition to the standard came from communities. Most cited the perceived devastating economic impacts on communities of using this large of a flood to designate floodplains and as a basis for mandatory purchase and floodplain management regulations. For example the City of Savannah testified that they had only sustained $10 million in damages since 1900, yet it would cost $100 million to $700 million to meet floodplain management requirements based on the 100-year standard. Alternatives that were discussed at the hearing include the 50-year standard, the historical flood of record, and a flexible standard that would recognize the differences in damages that would occur under a variety of flooding condition. FIA and USACE both prepared papers supporting of the 100-year standard that were submitted for the record. These papers both argued that the 100-year standard was a reasonable standard that provided the proper balance between the competing needs for economic development and flood protection and that there was a need for a uniform standard to administer the NFIP. Gilbert White, Jon Kusler and James Wright testified on a panel in support of the standard with Jon Kusler raising the additional concern that the 100-year standard may not be restrictive enough. In the Committee Report, the Committee “agreed that the 100-year standard or the flood that has a one percent chance of occurrence is reasonable and consistent with Nationwide standards for flood protection”. In retrospect this endorsement by the Senate Committee settled the issue of the 100-year standard even though there continued to be challenges to its use. For example, the issue was again raised in hearings on amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act in 1974. The 1974 amendments also are the first time the 100-year flood is specifically mentioned in NFIP legislation although only in the context of limiting flood insurance premiums where adequate progress had been made on constructing Federal flood control projects. Base Flood During this period concerns were raised that the term 100-year flood was misleading and that other terminology should be used. In an October 15, 1976 letter the Water Resources Council’s Hydrology Committee recommended that Federal agencies use descriptive terminology for future flood events that would convey to the public their probabilistic character. In keeping with the discussion that preceded this recommendation, HUD/FIA’s March 26, 1975 proposed rule and October 26, 1976 final rule introduced the terms “base flood” and “base flood elevation” and began to phase out the use of the term “100-year flood”. Base flood was defined was defined as “the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.” The term 100-year flood is still used in the NFIP as a colloquial term and is still used on flood hazard maps, but does not appear in the floodplain management regulations. In the national hearings and comment period held during the development of the October 26, 1976 final rule, there was again discussion on the NFIP’s use of the 100-year standard. Comments were divided, some wanting a less restrictive standard, others advocating elevating structures to a height exceeding the base flood elevation, and still others wanting to allow no new construction in the floodplain. In the final rule the FIA Administrator stated that he continued to believe that elevating to above the base flood elevation was reasonable and no changes were made to the standard. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management On May 24, 1977, President Carter issued Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. The Executive Order directs Federal agencies to use HUD (now FEMA) maps to determine if an action will occur in the floodplain and to adopt regulations and procedures consistent with those promulgated under the National Flood Insurance Program. This in effect established the 100-year standard as the minimum for evaluation of all Federal actions. The U.S. Water resources Council Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 11988 introduced the concept of providing 500-year protection to “critical actions”. “Critical actions” include those actions for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great. Examples include hazardous materials, hospitals, and emergency services. The Presidents Commission on Housing, the Vice Presidents Task Force on Regulatory Relief, and FEMA’s Report on the 100-year Base Flood Standard The Presidents Commission on Housing was established in June of 1981 and charged with reviewing all existing Federal housing policy and programs and assessing factors that contribute to the cost of housing. Much of the focus of the commission was on removing regulatory barriers and not on issues such as providing adequate flood protection to housing. The Commission provided a forum for HUD and others to again raise issues associated with the 100-year standard. The Commission recommended reevaluating and revising the 100- year standard to “take into account water height, velocity of flow, frequency of flooding, quality of floodwater (sediment and debris), historical flood-loss experience, socioeconomic costs (both in terms of damage and of removal of land from development), and maximum average annual damages…” They suggested substituting a risk-based approach based on an acceptable level of flood damage to structures for the 100-year standard. Based on the recommendations of the Presidents Commission on Housing, the Vice Presidents Task Force on Regulatory Relief included the 100-year standard and Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management on its list of Federal regulations and policies that might impose severe hardships on States, local entities, and citizens. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) then directed FEMA to undertake a review of the 100-year base flood standard and Executive Order 11988. FEMA reviewed the history and usage of the standard and conducted a formal solicitation of comments from Federal agencies, the Governors and others. Again, no effort was made to analyze the standard in terms of costs and benefits. Federal and State agencies, communities, and individuals submitted 105 comments on the 100-year Base Flood Standard. The responses were overwhelmingly in support of retaining the 100-year base flood standard. FEMA submitted its report to OMB in September of 1983. Findings and conclusions were: • The 100-year base flood standard was strongly supported and being applied successfully by all levels of government. • No alternatives were identified that were superior to it, and there was no evidence to justify the expenditure of funds that would be necessary to convert to another standard. • Improvements or refinements in application of the 100-year base flood standard to unique flooding situations could further effect flood loss reduction. FEMA recommended to OMB that the base flood standard be retained. In a January 6, 1984 letter, OMB agreed with FEMA’s conclusions and concluded that “the 100-year base flood standard appears to be working well and, given it’s widespread use, it does not appear to be in the public interest to adopt another methodology.” Discussions on the 1 Percent Chance Flood Standard Since 1983 Since 1983, there has been very little discussion on changing the 1 percent chance flood standard to an alternative standard. The standard has been incorporated into policies and programs at all levels of government and any change would be exceedingly costly and disruptive. The need to provide protection to at least the 1 percent chance flood has become almost universally accepted. Communities seldom argue that implementation of floodplain management regulations that use the 1 percent chance flood standard will cause severe economic harm. Most of the discussion has instead focused on how the standard is applied and, in particular, whether current NFIP minimum requirements are achieving a 1 percent chance flood level of protection. A major concern has been how that the level of protection can deteriorate over time due to factors such as urbanization, coastal erosion, and floodplain encroachment that tend to increase flood risk. The Association of State Floodplain Managers’ (ASFPM) “No Adverse Impact” initiative in part is intended to address many of these issues. Examples of actions that can be taken beyond NFIP minimum requirements to prevent future increases in flood damages include: • Use of future conditions hydrology, particularly in rapidly urbanizing areas, • Stormwater management and regulation to reduce increases in run-off, • Preservation of floodplain storage, • Designation of zero rise floodways, and • Use of Freeboard In addition, there are special hazards that are not adequately addressed by current NFIP mapping and minimum floodplain management standards, such as: • Areas subject to coastal erosion. • Coastal AE zones. These are areas outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) that are subject to wave impacts. • Alluvial fans and similar arid regions flooding. These issues are not related to adequacy of 1 percent chance flood standard, but instead relate to how the standard is applied. Finally, there are two situations where there is general agreement that protection to the 1 percent chance flood may not provide an adequate level of flood protection: • Recognition of levees providing protection to urban development. • Protection of critical facilities. These issues were addressed in Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21st Century (Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, June 1994) written in response to the 1993 Midwest Floods. That report expressed concerns over the residual risk behind levees credited with providing100-year protection. It recommended that the Standard Project Flood be used as the minimum level of protection for urban development and that flood insurance be required behind all levees that provide less than that level of protection. The report also recommended providing a similar level of protection to critical facilities. Residual risk behind levees was also a major issue in the on-going controversy related to the American River levee system in Sacramento, California. This resulted in the report Flood Risk Management and the American River Basin: An Evaluation published in 1995 by the National Academy of Science. NFIP Community Rating System (CRS) FEMA’s strategy to address many of the issues identified in the previous section has been to provide incentives through the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (CRS) for communities that voluntarily map or regulate to a higher standard than NFIP minimum requirements. Many of the approaches recommended in ASFPM’s No Adverse Impact: A Toolkit for Common Sense Floodplain Management (2003) are already credited under CRS. In addition, most FEMA guidance that has been issued in recent years not only explains minimum requirements, but also recommends that communities consider adopting more restrictive requirements where appropriate. NFIP Evaluation In 1999 FEMA began a comprehensive evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The evaluation is being coordinated for FEMA by the American Institutes for Research (AIR). Proposals are currently being solicited for a subcontractor to conduct a study on the 1-Percent Chance Flood Standard. This study will build on the results of the ASFPM Forum and provide an opportunity to follow-up on any issues that are identified. Other studies already underway that may provide information on the adequacy of the 1 percent chance flood standard include studies on: • Mapping Anticipated Development • Minimum Building standards • Environmental and Developmental Impacts of the NFIP • Actuarial Soundness • Risk Perception • Costs and Consequences of Flooding Sources: Association of State Floodplain Managers, No Adverse Impact: A Toolkit for Common Sense Floodplain Management. ASFPM, 2003. Committee on Flood Control Alternatives n the American River Basin, national Academy of Sciences, Flood Risk Management and the American River Basin: An Evaluation, National Academy of Sciences, 1995. Federal Emergency Management Agency, The 100-Year Base Flood Standard and the Floodplain Management Executive Order: A Review Prepared for the Office of Management and Budget by the Federal Emergency management Agency. FEMA, September 1983. Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21st Century, GPO, June 1994. Lally, Nick, Historical Use of the 100 Year Flood for Flood Plain Determination and Regulation. Unpublished paper prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1982. Langford, R.H., Chairman, Hydrology Committee, Water Resources Council, Letter to Gary D. Cobb, Acting Director, Water Resources Council, dated October 15, 1976. The Presidents Commission on Housing, Report of the Presidents Commission on Housing. April 1982. U. S. Senate, Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973: Report of the Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate to Accompany H.R. 8449, GPO, November 23, 1973. U. S. Senate, Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate …on S. 1495 and H.R. 8449, GPO, October 31, 1973. White, Gilbert F. et al, Report on Flood Plain Management Guidelines Seminar, Center for Urban Studies, The University of Chicago, January, 1969. Wright, James M., The Nation’s Response to Flood Disasters: A Historical Account. Association of State Floodplain Managers, April 2000.