U.S. Department of Homeland Security

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Office of Chief Counsel

                             REGULATORY EVALUATION
                                      FOR
                         NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
                          [DOCKET ID FEMA-2015-0006]
UPDATES TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF WETLANDS REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER 13690 AND THE FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD
                  TITLE 44 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 9
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
                          REGULATORY AFFAIRS DIVISION
AUGUST 2016

Table of Contents
LIST OF TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT	1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	2
INTRODUCTION	11
1.	STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR REGULATION	13
          1.1 Background	13
          1.2 Executive Order Direction	15
          1.3 Federal Solution	16
          1.4 Market Failure or Other Compelling Public Need	16
2.	FINDINGS	17
3.	PROGRAM BACKGROUND	18
4.	SUMMARY OF REGULATORY CHANGE	20
          4.1 Executive Orders 11988 and 13690	25
          4.2 Changes Directed by Executive Order 13690	25
          4.3 Changes Included in Proposed Supplementary Policy	26
          4.4 Other Changes	27
5. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	30
6. ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS	31
          6.1 Freeboard Values	31
          6.2 FEMA Programs Affected by the FFRMS	31
          6.3 Federal Cost Share	32
          6.4 General Assumptions Used in This Analysis	33
7.	BASELINE	33
8.	HISTORICAL DATA ON FLOODS	34
9.	BURDENS FROM RULEMAKING	35
          9.1 Using Natural Systems, Ecosystem Processes, and Nature-Based Approaches when Developing Alternatives for Consideration	35
          9.2 Climate-Informed Science Approach	36
          9.3 Elevation and Floodproofing Cost Data	37
          9.4 Floodplain Expansion Data	38
          9.5 Freeboard Value Approach	41
          9.5.1 Individual Assistance	45
          9.5.2 Public Assistance	52
          9.5.3 Hazard Mitigation Assistance	63
          9.5.4 Other FEMA Programs Potentially Affected	73
          9.6 Administrative Costs	75
          9.6.1 Training Costs	75
          9.6.2 The FFRMS Floodplain Determination	76
          9.7 The FFRMS Implementation Costs	78
          9.8 Qualitative Discussion of Additional Potential Costs	79
          9.8.1 The 8-step Floodplain Management Decision-Making Process	79
          9.8.2 Diversion of Projects Out of the Floodplain	80
9.9 Total Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule	80
10. BENEFITS	82
          10.1 Reduction in Damage to Properties	84
          10.2 Other Qualitative Benefits	86
          10.3 Summary of Benefits	88
11	RESULTS	88
12	SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS	88
13	ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED	89
          13.1 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Approach	89
          13.2 Climate-Informed Science Approach	90
          13.3 Other Approaches	91
14	CONCLUSION	92
APPENDIX A. HORIZONTAL FLOODPLAIN INCREASES DUE TO FREEBOARD VALUES	95
Discussion of Data Sources for Appendix A	96

LIST OF TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT
0.2PFA			0.2 percent annual chance Flood Approach
ASFPM			Association of State Floodplain Managers
BFE			Base Flood Elevation
CISA			Climate-Informed Science Approach
CFR			Code of Federal Regulations
CRS			Community Rating System
FVA			Freeboard Value Approach
FEMA			Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFRMS			Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
FIMA			Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
FIRM			Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FIS			Flood Insurance Study
FRD			Flood Risk Database
FRR			Flood Risk Report
GIS			Geographic Information System
GPD			Grants Programs Directorate
GS			General Schedule
HMA			Hazard Mitigation Assistance
IA			Individual Assistance
IPAWS			Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
MHU			Manufactured Housing Unit
MitFLG			Mitigation Framework Leadership Group
NAHB			National Association of Home Builders
NFIP			National Flood Insurance Program
NOAA			National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OEHP			Office of Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
PA			Public Assistance
PHC			Permanent Housing Construction
PV			Present Value
RAD			Risk Analysis Division
SES			Senior Executive Service
SFHA			Special Flood Hazard Area
Stafford Act		Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
WRC			Water Resources Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
      The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing to amend 44 CFR Part 9 "Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands" and issue a supplementary policy to implement the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) that was established by Executive Order 13690.  FEMA is proposing to update 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 9 and issue guidance to implement these changes.
      The FFRMS is a flexible framework to increase resilience against flooding and to help preserve the natural values of floodplains.  FEMA is proposing to incorporate the FFRMS into its existing processes, to ensure that the floodplain for FEMA Federally Funded Projects is expanded from the current base flood level to a higher vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain and that, where possible, natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches would be used when developing alternatives to locating Federal actions in the floodplain.
      FEMA estimates that for the 10-year period after the rule goes into effect, the benefits would justify the costs.  Flooding is the most common type of natural disaster in the United States, and floods are expected to be more frequent and more severe over the next century due to the projected effects of climate change.  The ocean has warmed, polar ice has melted, and porous landmasses have subsided.  Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880 and is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.  Floods are costly natural disasters; between 1980 and 2013, the United States suffered more than $260 billion in flood-related damages.  This proposed rule would help protect Federal investments from future floods, and would help minimize harm in floodplains, by changing how FEMA defines the floodplain for FEMA-funded new construction and substantial improvement (i.e., "Federally Funded Projects").  The expected costs of this proposed rule are primarily due to increased elevation or floodproofing requirements of structures in the FFRMS floodplain, with the majority of these costs expected to be incurred by FEMA itself through several grant programs, which will be either passed through to taxpayers or result in lower levels of Government services.  FEMA grant recipients would bear approximately 25 percent of the project costs for those grant programs that have a cost-share requirement.
      The cost components of this proposed rule relate to grants under FEMA's Individual Assistance (IA), Public Assistance (PA), Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA), and Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) programs, as well as FEMA facilities and the Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS).  To estimate the cost of the proposed elevation requirements FEMA uses data from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  Table 1 and Table 2 show the costs and benefits by program, that FEMA has available, annualized for the first 10 years.  Most of the estimated costs come from PA Category C, which includes replacements of bridges.
Table 1.  Summary of Costs and Non-Monetized Benefits by Program (Low Estimate, 2015$)

                               3% Discount Rate
                               7% Discount Rate
Cost
                                                                   Undiscounted
                                                                  Present Value
                                                                     Annualized
                                                                  Present Value
                                                                     Annualized
IA MHU
                                                                         $2,376
                                                                         $2,027
                                                                           $238
                                                                         $1,669
                                                                           $238
IA PHC
                                                                        $16,901
                                                                        $14,417
                                                                         $1,690
                                                                        $11,871
                                                                         $1,690
PA Category C*
                                                                    $56,455,153
                                                                    $48,157,391
                                                                     $5,645,515
                                                                    $39,651,737
                                                                     $5,645,515
PA Category D
                                 Not estimated
PA Category E
                                                                     $2,593,108
                                                                     $2,211,974
                                                                       $259,311
                                                                     $1,821,290
                                                                       $259,311
PA Category F
                                 Not estimated
PA Category G
                                 Not estimated
HMA Elevation
                                                                     $1,498,569
                                                                     $1,278,309
                                                                       $149,857
                                                                     $1,052,532
                                                                       $149,857
HMA Floodproofing
                                                                        $23,637
                                                                        $20,163
                                                                         $2,364
                                                                        $16,602
                                                                         $2,364
FEMA Training
                                                                       $173,215
                                                                       $151,286
                                                                        $17,735
                                                                       $128,615
                                                                        $18,312
Floodplain Determination
                                                                        $15,156
                                                                        $13,112
                                                                         $1,537
                                                                        $10,972
                                                                         $1,562
Implementation Costs
                                                                       $178,652
                                                                       $170,923
                                                                        $20,037
                                                                       $161,503
                                                                        $22,994
Benefits

IA MHU
                                 Not estimated
                               Damage Avoidance
                             Potential Lives Saved
                      Increased Public Health and Safety
                            Decreased Cleanup Time
                       Protection of Critical Facilities
                  Reduction of Personal and Community Impacts
IA PHC

PA Category C

PA Category D

PA Category E

PA Category F

PA Category G

HMA Elevation

HMA Floodproofing

FEMA Training
                      Administrative Requirement of Rule
Floodplain Determination

Implementation Costs

      *Costs for roads not estimated
Table 2.  Summary of Costs and Non-Monetized Benefits by Program (High Estimate, 2015$)

                               3% Discount Rate
                               7% Discount Rate
Cost
                                                                   Undiscounted
                                                                  Present Value
                                                                     Annualized
                                                                  Present Value
                                                                     Annualized
IA MHU
                                                                        $33,833
                                                                        $28,861
                                                                         $3,383
                                                                        $23,763
                                                                         $3,383
IA PHC
                                                                       $240,712
                                                                       $205,332
                                                                        $24,071
                                                                       $169,066
                                                                        $24,071
PA Category C*
                                                                   $338,730,847
                                                                   $288,944,283
                                                                    $33,873,085
                                                                   $237,910,372
                                                                    $33,873,085
PA Category D
                                 Not estimated
PA Category E
                                                                    $34,371,967
                                                                    $29,319,985
                                                                     $3,437,197
                                                                    $24,141,432
                                                                     $3,437,197
PA Category F
                                 Not estimated
PA Category G
                                 Not estimated
HMA Elevation
                                                                    $20,648,203
                                                                    $17,613,336
                                                                     $2,064,820
                                                                    $14,502,434
                                                                     $2,064,820
HMA Floodproofing
                                                                        $32,562
                                                                       $277,761
                                                                        $32,562
                                                                       $228,702
                                                                        $32,562
FEMA Training
                                                                       $173,215
                                                                       $151,286
                                                                        $17,735
                                                                       $128,615
                                                                        $18,312
Floodplain Determination
                                                                        $15,156
                                                                        $13,112
                                                                         $1,537
                                                                        $10,972
                                                                         $1,562
Implementation Costs
                                                                       $178,652
                                                                       $170,923
                                                                        $20,037
                                                                       $161,503
                                                                        $22,994
Benefits

IA MHU
                                 Not estimated
                               Damage Avoidance
                             Potential Lives Saved
                      Increased Public Health and Safety
                            Decreased Cleanup Time
                       Protection of Critical Facilities
                  Reduction of Personal and Community Impacts
IA PHC

PA Category C

PA Category D

PA Category E

PA Category F

PA Category G

HMA Elevation

HMA Floodproofing

FEMA Training
                      Administrative Requirement of Rule
Floodplain Determination

Implementation Costs

      *Costs for roads not estimated
      IA Projects
      IA Permanent Housing Construction (PHC) projects and sales of Manufactured Housing Units (MHUs) would be affected by the proposed rule.  Although floodproofing is a valid option in some instances, FEMA regulations prohibit the floodproofing of residential structures.  In these cases, elevation is the only option.  FEMA calculated the cost of elevating structures under PHC structures by adding the cost of elevating projects between 1 foot and 3 feet above the base flood elevation (BFE), depending on location and type of project.  FEMA subtracted certain costs that it determined to be part of the baseline.  Specifically, numerous States and localities have existing freeboard requirements that would result in elevation costs and benefits regardless of this proposed rule, so costs and benefits for these areas were reduced based on existing requirements.  The total PHC cost is estimated to range between $1,690 and $24,071 per year for FEMA (PHCs are funded fully by FEMA).  FEMA estimates that an average of 2.22 PHCs per year would be subject to FFRMS requirements.  IA also includes the sale of MHUs.  The total MHU cost is estimated to range between $238 and $3,383 per year.  FEMA estimates that an average of 4.88 MHUs per year would be subject to FFRMS requirements.  An MHU elevation must be paid fully by an IA grant recipient who ultimately purchases the MHU.
      PA Projects
      PA Categories C, D, E, F, and G projects would be affected by the proposed rule, but FEMA is only able to provide partial estimates of costs associated with Categories C (Roads and Bridges) and E (Public Buildings).
      FEMA cannot estimate the costs of improving flood resiliency of roads because of the highly project-specific nature of road projects, and numerous options for making roads resilient.  Damage to roads during flood events can be caused by erosion and scour, inundation by floodwater, or debris blockage, and can be worsened by issues such as misaligned culverts, insufficient culvert capacity, embankment erosion, road and shoulder damage, and obstructions that reduce culvert capacity.  A sampling of mitigation actions that can improve the resiliency of a road to flooding include installing low water crossings, increasing culvert size, installing a relief culvert, adding rip rap to a road embankment to provide slope protection, installing structures such as aprons and baffle structures that dissipate the energy of floodwater, realigning culverts, and installing road shoulder subsurface drains.
      FEMA considers all PA Category C grants used to replace publicly-owned bridges to be critical actions for the purposes of this analysis.  There are a variety of techniques that can be used to floodproof a bridge, but the specific techniques depends on the specific bridge, location, and circumstances.  FEMA estimates that the costs of this proposed rule for Category C bridge grants would range from a low of $5,645,515 per year to a high of $33,873,085 per year.  FEMA estimates that an average of 7.10 PA Category C bridge projects per year would be subject to FFRMS requirements.  The total cost to the PA program is estimated to be between $5,904,826 and $37,310,281 per year.  With the 75 percent cost share, the cost to FEMA would be between $4,428,620 and $27,982,711 per year, while the cost to grant recipients would be between $1,476,207 and $9,327,570 per year.
      FEMA used data from PA grant approvals from 2006-2015 and used a multi-step process to estimate the range of costs for elevating Category E structures.  FEMA estimates that the elevation cost for Category E non-critical actions would be a low of $219,301 per year and a high of $3,123,171 per year.  FEMA estimates that an average of 19.19 PA Category E projects per year would be subject to FFRMS requirements.  In addition, FEMA estimates that the total cost for Category E critical actions would range from a low of $40,009 per year to a high of $314,026 per year.
      HMA Projects
      FEMA used data from HMA grant approvals for elevation and floodproofing of structures from 2006-2015 and a multi-step process to estimate the range of costs for elevating or floodproofing these structures.  FEMA estimates that the total cost for HMA non-critical actions for elevation projects would range from a low of $138,999 per year to a high of $1,979,591 per year.  In addition, FEMA estimates that the total cost for HMA critical actions for elevation projects would range from a low of $10,858 per year to a high of $85,229 per year.  FEMA estimates that an average of 73.69 HMA elevation projects per year would be subject to FFRMS requirements.  The total cost for HMA non-critical actions for floodproofing projects would be a low of $2,188 per year and a high of $31,165 per year.  In addition, FEMA estimates that the total cost for HMA critical actions for floodproofing projects would be a low of $176 per year and a high of $1,397 per year.  FEMA estimates that an average of 4.70 HMA floodproofing projects per year would be subject to FFRMS requirements.  FEMA estimates the total cost of this rule for the HMA program to be between $152,221 and $2,097,382 per year.  With the 75 percent cost share, the cost to FEMA would be between $114,165 and $1,573,037 per year, while the cost to grant recipients would be between $38,055 and $524,346 per year.
      HMA also funds various other types of projects, such as minor flood control, property acquisition, generators, and mitigation reconstruction, but FEMA is unable to estimate the potential costs associated with these projects because the manner in which each applicant meets the resiliency standards will be fact-specific and dependent upon the nature of the design and purpose of the project.  Additional minor mitigation measures would have to be taken for these projects, if located in the expanded FFRMS floodplain.  FEMA requests public comments.
      The costs of the proposed rule would be from IA, PA, and HMA programs, as well as administrative costs.  FEMA expects minimal costs associated with GPD and IPAWS because these programs do not fund new construction or substantial improvement projects.  These projects are also by nature typically resilient from flooding.  FEMA facilities may also be subject to additional requirements due to the implementation of the proposed rule.
      FEMA estimates that the total additional grants costs as a result of the proposed rule would be between $906,696 and $7.8 million per year for FEMA and between $301,906 and $2.6 million per year for grant recipients due to the increased elevation or floodproofing requirements of FEMA Federally Funded Projects.
      In addition, FEMA expects to incur some administrative costs as a result of this proposed rule.  FEMA estimates initial training costs of around $100,000 the first two years after the rule is implemented, and administrative and training costs of around $16,000 per year thereafter.
      FEMA estimates that the total annual cost of this rule after year two would be between $6.1 million and $39.5 million.
      FEMA estimates the quantified cost of this proposed rule over the next 10 years would range between $60.1 million and $394.7 million.  The present value (PV) of these estimated costs using a 7 percent discount rate would range between $42.9 million and $277.3 million.  The PV using a 3 percent discount rate would range between $52.0 million and $336.7 million.  These costs would be split between FEMA (75 percent) and recipients (25 percent) of FEMA grants in the floodplain.  The low estimates of the 10-year costs of this rule, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent are presented in Table 3.  The high estimates of the 10-year costs of this rule, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent are presented in Table 4.
Table 3.  10-year cost totals using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates (Low Estimate, 2015$)
                                     Year
                               FEMA Admin. Costs
                               FEMA Grant Costs
                             Recipient Cost Share
                                                      Undiscounted annual costs
                         Annual costs discounted at 3%
                         Annual costs discounted at 7%
                                       1
                                                                      $135,291
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,194,265
                                                                    $6,013,850
                                                                    $5,789,033
                                       2
                                                                      $105,336
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,164,310
                                                                    $5,810,454
                                                                    $5,384,147
                                       3
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $5,559,471
                                                                    $4,958,997
                                       4
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $5,397,545
                                                                    $4,634,576
                                       5
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $5,240,335
                                                                    $4,331,380
                                       6
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $5,087,704
                                                                    $4,048,019
                                       7
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $4,939,518
                                                                    $3,783,195
                                       8
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $4,795,649
                                                                    $3,535,696
                                       9
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $4,655,970
                                                                    $3,304,389
                                      10
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                    $4,544,475
                                                                    $1,514,499
                                                                    $6,074,984
                                                                    $4,520,359
                                                                    $3,088,214
Total
                                                                      $368,707
                                                                   $45,444,751
                                                                   $15,144,992
                                                                   $60,958,451
                                                                   $52,020,854
                                                                   $42,857,646
Annualized

                                                                    $6,098,431
                                                                    $6,101,965
Table 4.  10-year cost totals using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates (High Estimate, 2015$)
                                     Year
                               FEMA Admin. Costs
                               FEMA Grant Costs
                             Recipient Cost Share
                           Undiscounted annual costs
                         Annual costs discounted at 3%
                         Annual costs discounted at 7%
                                       1
                                                                      $135,291
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,570,409
                                                                   $38,417,873
                                                                   $36,981,691
                                       2
                                                                      $105,336
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,540,454
                                                                   $37,270,670
                                                                   $34,536,164
                                       3
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $36,103,371
                                                                   $32,203,872
                                       4
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $35,051,817
                                                                   $30,097,077
                                       5
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $34,030,890
                                                                   $28,128,109
                                       6
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $33,039,699
                                                                   $26,287,953
                                       7
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $32,077,378
                                                                   $24,568,180
                                       8
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $31,143,085
                                                                   $22,960,916
                                       9
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $30,236,005
                                                                   $21,458,800
                                      10
                                                                       $16,010
                                                                   $29,579,819
                                                                    $9,855,299
                                                                   $39,451,128
                                                                   $29,355,345
                                                                   $20,054,953
Total
                                                                      $368,707
                                                                  $295,798,190
                                                                   $98,552,993
                                                                  $394,719,890
                                                                  $336,726,132
                                                                  $277,277,715
Annualized

                                                                   $39,474,575
                                                                   $39,478,109
      Benefits
      FEMA anticipates that the benefits of the proposed rule would justify the costs.  FEMA is has provided qualitative benefits, including the reduction in damage to properties and contents from future floods, potential lives saved, public health and safety benefits, reduced recovery time from floods, and increased community resilience to flooding.
      FEMA believes this proposed rule would result in savings in time and money from a reduced recovery period after a flood and increased safety of individuals.  Generally, if properties are protected, there would be less damage, resulting in less clean-up time.  In addition, higher elevations help to protect people, leading to increased safety.  FEMA is unable to quantify these benefits, but improving the resiliency of bridges has significant qualitative benefits, including: protecting evacuation and escape routes; limiting blockages of floodwaters passing under the bridge that may lead to more severe flooding upstream; and, avoiding the cost of replacing the bridge again if it is damaged during a subsequent flood.  Any estimates of these savings would be dependent on the specific circumstances and FEMA is not able to provide a numeric value on these savings.
      A 2008 FEMA report analyzes potential savings from damage avoidance associated with including freeboard in the construction of new residential structures in coastal areas at various freeboard levels.  According to this report, in some contexts a dollar spent on elevation activities could result in a $1.30 to $8.92 return on investment, due to damage avoidance only.  This report shows that the benefits of incorporating freeboard exceed the costs for certain projects located in coastal flood zones.  However, the report's scope is limited to new construction of houses in coastal areas.  Due to the relatively narrow scope of the study, FEMA has not used the results of this report to estimate monetized benefits of freeboard to the nationwide projects that would be affected by this rule.  FEMA requests information and studies from the public that examine the benefits of freeboard for a more diverse set of projects, such as non-residential structures, retrofitting substantial improvement projects, projects in non-coastal floodplains.  If FEMA receives additional information that informs an estimate of the monetized benefits of freeboard to a broad range of structures, we may provide a monetized estimate of benefits in the final rule.
INTRODUCTION
      Floods have the greatest damage potential of all natural disasters worldwide and affect the greatest number of people.  The number of people affected and economic damages resulting from flooding are on the rise.  Approximately 73 percent of major U.S. disaster declarations from 2006-2015 relate to events that included flooding.  The coastal and riverine floodplains of the United States are highly desirable sites for most kinds of human activities and contain a wealth of natural and cultural resources of immense importance and value to the Nation.
      FEMA is proposing to amend its regulations addressing floodplain management and protection of wetlands to implement Executive Order 13690, which establishes the FFRMS.
      The FFRMS requirement to expand the floodplain from the current base flood level to a higher vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain would apply to all FEMA Federally Funded Projects.  This rule would define "FEMA Federally Funded Projects" as actions involving the use of FEMA funds for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to a structure or facility.
      The FFRMS requirement to consider, where possible, the use of natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches when developing alternatives to taking action in the floodplain would apply to all Federal Actions.  Under Executive Order 11988, a Federal Action is "any Federal activity including (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands, and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities."
      By applying a stricter floodplain management standard, FEMA believes that fewer fatalities would occur and property damage due to flooding would be prevented.  Executive Order 13690 provides for four different approaches to establish the stricter floodplain management standard:
         * Climate-Informed Science Approach (CISA),
         * Freeboard Value Approach (FVA),
         * 0.2 percent annual chance Flood Approach (0.2PFA), and
         * The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.
      FEMA has selected the use of the FVA to establish the floodplain for non-critical actions.  For critical actions, FEMA would allow use of the FVA or the CISA, but only if the elevation established under the CISA is higher than the elevation established under the FVA.  FEMA is not proposing to use the 0.2PFA.  The fourth approach is intended to allow for changes based on future needs and is not discussed in this analysis.
      The CISA is the preferred method of the FFRMS, but due to current scientific and technological limitations, is not expected to be widely adopted initially.  FEMA considered proposing the use of the FFRMS-CISA instead of FFRMS-FVA to reflect the FFRMS's designation of the FFRMS-CISA as the preferred approach and to reflect that the FFRMS-FVA sets a general level of protection, whereas FFRMS-CISA uses a more site-specific approach to predict flood risk based on future conditions.  However, there are several reasons why that course of action is not appropriate at this time.  First, actionable climate data are not currently available for all locations.  For coastal floodplains, one of the primary considerations associated with the FFRMS-CISA is determining what the projected future sea level rise will be for the area in which the project will be completed.  There are multiple interagency reports, published scientific journals, and agency tools that provide scenario-based projections of sea level rise for coastal floodplains.  However, FEMA is not aware of an analogous approach for riverine floodplains that accounts for uncertainties due to climate change with respect to projected future precipitation and associated flooding.  Instead, the Revised Guidelines suggest the agency would need to conduct a hydrology study that is informed by expected changes in climate and land use factors and incorporate this analysis into its current method for determining the floodplain.  FEMA expects that more data will be developed supporting broader-based inland and riverine application of the FFRMS-CISA as agencies implement the FFRMS and that this data will be considered and incorporated into future updates of the FFRMS.  FEMA requests comment on the availability of actionable, planning, and project-scale climate data with respect to coastal and riverine floodplains.  Second, in addition to the data challenges, there are a number of factors to be considered in deciding how to apply the FFRMS-CISA that might result in a decision-making process that could unnecessarily delay recovery in the wake of a disaster event for non-critical actions.  The Revised Guidelines recommend that the FFRMS-CISA methodology account for project-specific factors such as the risk to which the action will be exposed, the anticipated level of investment, and the lifecycle of the action.  For example, an applicant might consider a construction project that is in a coastal floodplain and find that there are multiple projections for what the sea level rise may be in 100 years.  The most aggressive projection might indicate that the project should be elevated 10 feet above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation.  However, the applicant might decide that this project is not intended to be functional for 100 years or that the applicant's budget might justify using a lesser projection now and plan for future upgrades to the structure or facility.  There may be a way to standardize this type of decision-making process as the FFRMS-CISA is more broadly used; however, the current lack of a standardized methodology for making these decisions and the need to engage in such project-specific considerations in conjunction with stakeholders could result in uncertainty and delay.  In light of the above concerns, FEMA requests comment regarding how FEMA could implement the FFRMS-CISA for non-critical actions using a publicly-accessible, standardized, predictable, flexible, and cost-effective methodology.  In light of the above concerns, FEMA is not proposing to allow use of the CISA in most instances at this time.  CISA is discussed further in Section 13.2.  FEMA requests comment, however, on the availability of actionable climate data with respect to coastal and riverine floodplains, and on how FEMA could implement the CISA for non-critical actions using a standardized, predictable, flexible, and cost-effective methodology.
   1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR REGULATION
      According to Section 1 of Executive Order 13690:
      "It is the policy of the United States to improve the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of flooding.  These impacts are anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats.  Losses caused by flooding affect the environment, our economic prosperity, and public health and safety, each of which affects our national security."
      Executive Order 13690 also states:
      "As part of a national policy on resilience and risk reduction consistent with my Climate Action Plan, the National Security Council staff coordinated an interagency effort to create a new flood risk reduction standard for federally funded projects. The views of Governors, mayors, and other stakeholders were solicited and considered as efforts were made to establish a new flood risk reduction standard for federally funded projects. The result of these efforts is the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (Standard), a flexible framework to increase resilience against flooding and help preserve the natural values of floodplains. Incorporating this Standard will ensure that agencies expand management from the current base flood level to a higher vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain to address current and future flood risk and ensure that projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended."
1.1 Background
      After Hurricane Sandy it became clear to the Federal Government that there should be a reevaluation of the current flood risk reduction standards.  The President issued Executive Order 13632, which created the Federal Interagency Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (Sandy Task Force).  Pursuant to direction from Executive Order 13632 to remove obstacles to resilient rebuilding, the Sandy Task Force reevaluated the 1 percent chance/100-year standard.  In April 2013, the Sandy Task Force announced a new Federal flood risk reduction standard which required elevation or other flood-proofing to 1 foot above the best available and most recent base flood elevation and applied that standard to all investments in Sandy-affected communities.  The Sandy Task Force called for all major Sandy rebuilding projects in Sandy-affected communities using Federal funding to be elevated or otherwise floodproofed according to this new flood risk reduction standard.  In June 2013, the President issued a Climate Action Plan which directs agencies to take appropriate actions to reduce risk to Federal investments, specifically directing agencies to build on the work done by the Sandy Task Force and to update their flood risk reduction standards for "federally-funded . . . projects" to ensure that "projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended."  In November 2013, the President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Climate Task Force) convened, with 26 Governors, mayors, and local and Tribal leaders serving as members.  After a year-long process of receiving input from State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments; private businesses; trade associations; academic organizations; civil society; and other stakeholders, the Task Force provided a recommendation to the President in November 2014.  In order to ensure resiliency, Federal agencies, when taking actions in and around floodplains, should include considerations of the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, and increasing river flood risks.  The Climate Task Force also recommended that the best available climate data should be used in siting and designing projects receiving Federal funding, and that margins of safety, such as freeboard and setbacks, should be included.  Consistent with the Climate Action Plan, a group called the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) coordinated an interagency effort to create a new flood risk reduction standard.  The MitFLG developed the FFRMS reflecting the best available science, lessons learned and input and recommendations from the Sandy Task Force, the Climate Action Plan and the Climate Task Force.
      The President issued Executive Order 13690 which amended Executive Order 11988 and established the FFRMS.  Section 1 of Executive Order 13690 states:  "[T]he Federal Government must take action, informed by the best-available and actionable science, to improve the Nation's preparedness and resilience against flooding."
      The FFRMS is a flexible framework to increase resilience against flooding and help preserve the natural values of floodplains.  Incorporating the FFRMS into FEMA regulations would ensure that FEMA expands management from the current base flood level to a higher vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain to address current and future flood risk and ensure that projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended.  Several programs exist in order to assist with flood mitigation or recovery efforts after a flood.  IA and PA are disaster relief programs and primarily provide assistance after a disaster.  HMA Grants are provided in order to increase resilience to hazards, and these have been shown to be very effective.  By requiring recipients of FEMA funding to build flood resilience into their projects the proposed rule would reduce the likelihood of further damage and help prevent the loss of life in future flooding events.  This would compel public recipients of Federal funds to build to higher flood resiliency standards and avoid repetitive loss situations.
1.2 Executive Order Direction
      This rule proposes to amend FEMA's regulations for floodplain management and protection of wetlands.  Executive Order 11988 was issued in 1977 and directs all Federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.  When avoiding a floodplain is not possible, agencies are required to minimize potential harm.  The floodplain was defined in Executive Order 11988 as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including at a minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.  To meet the requirements of section 2(d) of Executive Order 11988, requiring agencies to issue or amend existing regulations and procedures to implement the Executive Order, FEMA promulgated regulations which are located at 44 CFR Part 9.
      On January 30, 2015, President Obama issued Executive Order 13690, which amended Executive Order 11988 and established the FFRMS.  Specifically, Executive Order 13690 and the FFRMS prescribed new floodplain approaches for Federally funded projects and added a definition of critical actions.  They also directed agencies to consider the use, where possible, of natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches when developing alternatives to locating projects in the floodplain.  Consistent with Executive Order 13690, FEMA is now proposing to revise 44 CFR Part 9 to reflect the changes to Executive Order 11988 made through Executive Order 13690.
1.3 Federal Solution
      This proposed rule is intended to protect Federal investments and to minimize the impacts on the floodplain.  In order to ensure that all Federal investments are assessed and provided the appropriate level of protection, the rule must be implemented at the Federal level.
1.4 Market Failure or Other Compelling Public Need
      In accordance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4, an agency must identify the problem that it intends to address.  The action may be taken to address a significant market failure or to meet some other compelling public need.
      Markets are efficient when the parties to a transaction understand and bear the full cost of their actions.  In this case, if FEMA grant recipients bore the full risk of flood damages to structures and facilities built with FEMA funds, no regulation would be required to achieve the socially optimal level of protection from floods.  Grant recipients would evaluate the risk and cost of flood damages against the cost of flood-protection and choose the most net-beneficial level of protection.  Likewise, if the grantee were to seek private flood insurance for the full market value of the property, the grant recipient would evaluate prices of insurance contracts for various levels of flood protection, and select the bundle of flood-protection and insurance that minimizes expected losses net of insurance and flood-protection costs.
      Currently, some communities have freeboard requirements while other communities do not.  The communities that do not have any local freeboard requirements could suffer from a market failure.  For communities with no existing freeboard requirement, if a flood occurs that results in damage to a building, the costs of repair may be borne by Federal assistance or other aid bodies.  The building owner may not have to pay for the full cost of their decision not to elevate or floodproof the property -- that is, the owner may not bear full responsibility for the external costs that exist.  Theoretically, if the building were elevated or floodproofed to a higher level, less damage would occur and therefore less Federal assistance would be required and aid bodies could focus on other aspects of assistance after a flood.  This proposed rule would mitigate some of the costs of the externality by protecting properties against flooding so that the Government or aid bodies may not need to incur costs to restore properties after a flood  -  thus, removing or diminishing the externality currently exists.
      FEMA acknowledges that there are some existing requirements in its grant programs to help ensure that building owners have a full incentive to build to an adequate elevation.  For instance, section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) limits the availability of PA for an insurable building damaged by flooding, if that building is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) identified by FEMA for more than one year.  In such a case, FEMA must reduce the amount of disaster assistance available under 406 for that building by the lesser of (1) the value of such facility on the date of the flood damage or destruction, and (2) the maximum amount of the insurance proceeds that would have been received had the building and its contents been fully covered by a standard flood insurance policy.  In cases where it applies, this mandatory SFHA reduction helps incentivize building owners to build to an appropriate elevation and pay for any assumed risk through insurance.
      But the mandatory SFHA reduction is of limited applicability.  The reduction only applies with respect to assistance under section 406 of the Stafford Act for buildings within an SFHA that has been identified by FEMA for more than one year.  And it does not apply with respect to a private nonprofit facility which is not covered by flood insurance solely because of the local government's failure to participate in the flood insurance program established by the National Flood Insurance Act.  The mandatory SFHA reduction therefore does not fully correct the market failure identified above.  By contrast, this proposed rule would apply to a broader range of FEMA programs (while still being limited to FEMA Federally Funded Projects), and would not be limited to the SFHA.
   2. FINDINGS
      This analysis includes qualitative and quantitative measurements of costs for the proposed rule.  For the 10-year period, the estimated costs would range between $60.1 million and $394.7 million.  The PV of the estimated costs using a 7 percent discount rate would range between $42.9 million and $277.3 million.  The PV using a 3 percent discount rate would range between $52.0 million and $336.7 million.
      The benefits of this rule would primarily be due to the protection of property by implementing more stringent flood resilience standards.  These benefits include damage avoidance and reduction from future flooding, potential lives saved, increased health and safety, reduced recovery times, and higher community resilience to flooding.  FEMA believes the potential flood protection benefits from the proposed rule would justify the costs.
      FEMA anticipates that this rulemaking would protect FEMA Federally Funded Projects for new construction, substantial improvement to structures and facilities, and repair of substantial damage resulting from declared disasters.
   3. PROGRAM BACKGROUND
      Executive Order 11988 requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains wherever there is a practicable alternative.  In accomplishing these objectives, "[e]ach agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities" for the following actions:  acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; providing federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing activities.
      Following the issuance of the Executive Order, the Water Resources Council (WRC) developed "Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988," which included model procedures to assist Federal agencies in implementing the Order.  The guidelines describe an 8-step process that agencies should carry out as part of their decision-making on projects that have potential impacts to or within the floodplain.  The eight steps reflect the decision-making process required in Section 2(a) of the Executive Order and are summarized as:
   1.          Determine if a proposed action is in the base floodplain (that area which has a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year or, for critical actions, the 500-year floodplain).
   2. Conduct early public review, including public notice.
   3.          Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the base floodplain, including alternative sites outside of the floodplain.
   4. Identify impacts of the proposed action.
   5.          If impacts cannot be avoided, develop measures to minimize the impacts and restore and preserve the floodplain, as appropriate.
   6. Reevaluate alternatives.
   7. Present the findings and a public explanation.
   8. Implement the action.
      Between 1980 and 2013, the United States suffered more than $260 billion in flood-related damages.  Historically flooding has been one of the leading causes of weather related fatalities.  Further, the costs borne by the Federal Government are more than any other hazard.  With climate change, it is expected that flooding risks will increase over time.  In fact, the National Climate Assessment, states that heavy precipitation and extreme heat events are increasing and the risks of such extreme events will rise in the future.  Damage from such events can be particularly severe to our infrastructure, including our buildings, roads, ports, industrial facilities, and even our coastal military installations.
      The FFRMS would ensure that all FEMA Federally Funded Projects in floodplains meet an appropriate level of resilience.
      The FFRMS builds on work done in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.  The President issued Executive Order 13632, which created the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force.  In April 2013, the Sandy Task Force announced that all Sandy-related rebuilding projects funded by the Sandy Supplemental (Public Law 113-2) must meet a consistent flood risk reduction standard.  The Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy recommended that the Federal Government create a national flood risk reduction standard for major Federal investments beyond the Sandy-related projects.  The FFRMS specifically requires agencies to consider current and future risk when taxpayer dollars are used to build or rebuild in floodplains.
      In implementing the FFRMS, Federal agencies are given the flexibility to select any or all of three approaches for establishing the flood elevation and hazard areas they use in siting, design, and construction.  The approaches provided are:  the elevation and flood hazard area that result from utilizing the best-available, actionable data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science; the elevation and flood hazard area that result from 2 or 3 feet of elevation, depending on the criticality of the building, above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation; or the elevation and area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood.
   1. SUMMARY OF REGULATORY CHANGE
      This section describes the significant regulatory changes being proposed by this rulemaking and associated proposed FEMA policy.  This proposed rule would:
      1) add or revise definitions to be consistent with those included in Executive Order 13690 and the Revised Guidelines;
      2) incorporate the use of the FFRMS approaches for establishing the floodplain for FEMA Federally Funded Projects into FEMA's existing 8-step process; and
      3) include the requirement to consider for all FEMA Federally Funded Projects the use of nature-based approaches where possible when developing alternatives for development in the floodplain.
      FEMA would provide specific guidelines through the supplementary FFRMS policy.
      Section 4.1 provides details about Executive Orders 11988 and 13690, section 4.2 describes the proposed changes that are directed by Executive Order 13690, section 4.3 describes proposed changes that would be implemented by FEMA policy, and section 4.4 addresses relevant proposed definitional changes.
      Table 5 summarizes the significant changes proposed by FEMA through this rule.  This table includes the current rule, current baseline, the proposed change to current regulations and the anticipated impacts of the proposed change.
Table 5.  Summary of Proposed Changes (2015$)
44 CFR
Current Regulations
Current Baseline
Proposed Change
Impacts
9.2
§ 9.2 Policy.
(a)  FEMA shall take no action unless and until the requirements of this regulation are complied with.
 (b)  It is the policy of the Agency to provide leadership in floodplain management and the protection of wetlands.  Further, the Agency shall integrate the goals of the Orders to the greatest possible degree into its procedures for implementing NEPA.  The Agency shall take action to:
 (1)  Avoid long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and the destruction and modification of wetlands;
 (2)  Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative;
 (3)  Reduce the risk of flood loss;
 (4)  Promote the use of nonstructural flood protection methods to reduce the risk of flood loss;
 (5)  Minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety and welfare;
 (6)  Minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands;
 (7)  Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains;
 (8)  Preserve and enhance the natural values of wetlands;
 (9)  Involve the public throughout the floodplain management and wetlands protection decision-making process;
 (10)  Adhere to the objectives of the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management; and
 (11)  Improve and coordinate the Agency's plans, programs, functions and resources so that the Nation may attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation or risk to health and safety.
In step 3, agencies are only required to reduce the risk of flood loss.  FEMA is not currently required to consider best-available and actionable science, but does so as part of current FEMA practice
Amend step 3 to add "to life and property and improve the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of flooding based on the best-available and actionable science"
Requires FEMA to consider best-available and actionable science in the course of floodplain development.  New policy statement, but no cost to FEMA or benefits as it is incorporated into current FEMA practice
9.4
§ 9.4 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply throughout this regulation.
Action, Administrator, Agency, Agency Assistance, Base Flood, Base Floodplain, Coastal High Hazard Area, Critical Action, Direct Impacts, Emergency Actions, Enhance Facility, FEMA FIA, Five Hundred Year Floodplain, Flood or flooding, Flood Fringe Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Flood Insurance Study (FIS), Floodplain, Floodproofing, Floodway, Functionally Dependent, Indirect Impacts, Minimize, Mitigation, Mitigation Directorate, Natural Values of Floodplains and Wetlands, New Construction, New Construction in Wetlands, Orders, Practicable, Preserve, Regional Administrator, Regulatory Floodway, Restore, Structures, Substantial Improvement, Support, and Wetlands.
Current definitions are 100-year floodplain and 500-year floodplain
Clarifies terminology to risk-based designations rather than expected frequency.  Adds definitions relevant to the rule.  Changes or removes other outdated definitions
The impact of the definition change is captured where the definition is applied
9.6 and 9.7
§ 9.6 Decision-making process.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in §9.5 (c), (d), (f), and (g) regarding categories of partial or total exclusion when proposing an action, the Agency shall apply the 8-step decision-making process.  FEMA shall:
Step 1. Determine whether the proposed action is located in a wetland and/or the 100-year floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical actions); and whether it has the potential to affect or be affected by a floodplain or wetland (see §9.7);
§ 9.7 Determination of proposed action's location.
(a) The purpose of this section is to establish Agency procedures for determining whether any action as proposed is located in or affects (1) the base floodplain (the Agency shall substitute the 500-year floodplain for the base floodplain where the action being proposed involves a critical action), or (2) a wetland.
Currently, the requirement is only to determine if the proposed action is in a 1-percent annual chance floodplain, or 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain for critical actions
The proposed rule would amend this requirement so that it includes the FFRMS floodplain
This change would result in the 8-step process applying to some projects in the FFRMS floodplain, rather than just the 1-percent annual chance floodplain (or 0.2 percent annual chance where applicable)
9.7(c)(1)(i)
§ 9.7 Determination of proposed action's location.
(c) Floodplain determination.
(1)  In the search for flood hazard information, FEMA shall follow the sequence below:
(i) The Regional Administrator shall consult the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) the Flood Boundary Floodway Map (FBFM) and the Flood Insurance Study (FIS).
A Federal funding determination is not required under existing regulations (i.e., actions involving the use of Federal funds for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to a structure or facility)
Adds requirement to determine if a project is federally funded
Allows for later application of the approaches to establishing the FFRMS floodplain to FEMA Federally Funded Projects
9.7(c)(1)(i)(A)
Currently no (A).
Current regulations do not have FFRMS floodplain or establishment of FFRMS floodplain by one of four approaches
Allows FEMA the option of establishing the FFRMS floodplain using the CISA
Allows use of climate-informed science where available.  Impact not currently quantifiable
9.7(c)(1)(i)(B)
Currently no (B).
Current regulations do not have FFRMS floodplain or establishment of FFRMS floodplain by one of four approaches
Allows FEMA the option of establishing the FFRMS floodplain using the Freeboard Value Approach:  2 feet non-critical actions, 3 feet critical actions
Allows use of freeboard values to determine the FFRMS floodplain.  Estimated annualized cost:  between $1.2 million and $10.4 million
9.7(c)(1)(i)(C)
Currently no (C).
Current regulations do not have FFRMS floodplain or establishment of FFRMS floodplain by one of four approaches
Allows FEMA the option of establishing the FFRMS floodplain using the 0.2PFA
Allows use of 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain as the FFRMS floodplain.
Not an approach proposed for use in FEMA's policy
9.7(c)(1)(i)(D)
Currently no (D).
Current regulations do not have FFRMS floodplain or establishment of FFRMS floodplain by one of four approaches
Allows FEMA the option of establishing the FFRMS floodplain using the elevation and flood hazard area resulting from any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS
Allows revisions for future FFRMS  as needed
9.7(c)(1)(ii)
(c) Floodplain determination.
 (1)  In the search for flood hazard information, FEMA shall follow the sequence below:
 (ii) If a detailed map (FIRM or FBFM) is not available, the Regional Administrator shall consult an FEMA Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM).  If data on flood elevations, floodways, or coastal high hazard areas are needed, or if the map does not delineate the flood hazard boundaries in the vicinity of the proposed site, the Regional Administrator shall seek the necessary detailed information and assistance from the sources listed below.
No additional requirements for FEMA Federally Funded Projects
Exception where the action is in the interest of national security
Allows exceptions from the proposed rule if needed for purposes of national security.  No monetized costs or benefits because there would not be a change from the baseline: these actions would not be exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 11988 altogether.  Instead, if one of FEMA's actions were to fall under the exception provided by this provision, FEMA would still be required to apply the 1 percent annual chance floodplain for non-critical actions and the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain for critical actions.
9.9(b)(2)
§ 9.9 Analysis and reevaluation of practicable alternatives.
(b) Analysis of practicable alternatives.  The Agency shall identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to carrying out a proposed action in floodplains or wetlands, including:
 (2)  Alternative actions which serve essentially the same purpose as the proposed action, but which have less potential to affect or be affected by the floodplain or wetlands; and...
No requirement to use natural systems, ecosystem processes, or nature-based approaches
FEMA shall use, where possible, natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches
Codifies current FEMA practice.  No associated costs or benefits
9.11(d)
§ 9.11 Mitigation
(d) Minimization Standards.  In its implementation of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, the Agency shall apply at a minimum, the following standards to its actions to comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c), of this section, (except as provided in § 9.5 (c), (d), and (g) regarding categories of partial or total exclusion).  Any Agency action to which the following specific requirements do not apply, shall nevertheless be subject to the full 8-step process (§ 9.6) including the general requirement to minimize harm to and within floodplains.
Minimization standards are applicable only to FEMA's implementation of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
Requires minimization standards to be applied to all of FEMA's grant programs
Codifies current FEMA practice.  FEMA has applied minimization standards to all programs since 1980 (not just the Disaster Relief Act of 1974).  No additional costs or benefits associated to FEMA or other stakeholders
9.11(d)(3)
§ 9.11 Mitigation.
(3) Elevation of structures.
(i)  There shall be no new construction or substantial improvement of structures unless the lowest floor of the structures (including basement) is at or above the level of the base flood.
(ii)  There shall be no new construction or substantial improvement of structures involving a critical action unless the lowest floor of the structure (including the basement) is at or above the level of the 500-year flood.
(iii)  If the subject structure is nonresidential, FEMA may, instead of elevating the structure to the 100-year or 500-year level, as appropriate, approve the design of the structure and its attendant utility and sanitary facilities so that below the flood level the structure is water tight 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.
(iv)  The provisions of paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section do not apply to the extent that the Federal Insurance Administration has granted an exception under 44 CFR § 60.6(b) (formerly 24 CFR 1910.6(b)), or the community has granted a variance which the Regional Administrator determines is consistent with 44 CFR 60.6(a) (formerly 24 CFR 1910.6(a)).  In a community which does not have a FIRM in effect, FEMA may approve a variance from the standards of paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section, after compliance with the standards of 44 CFR 60.6(a).
Structures must be elevated to the 100-year flood elevation, or the 500-year level if it is a critical action
Requires federally funded structures to be elevated above the FFRMS floodplain
Applies the FFRMS to all FEMA Federally Funded Projects.  Costs are due to increased elevation and horizontal expansion requirements as listed in § 9.7
9.13(d)(4)(i)
§ 9.13 Particular types of temporary housing.
(d)  The actions set out in paragraph (c) of this section are subject to the following decision-making process:
 (3) An individual or family shall not be housed in a floodplain or wetland unless the Regional Administrator has complied with the provisions of § 9.9 to determine that such site is the only practicable alternative.  The following factors shall be substituted for the factors in § 9.9 (c) and (e) (2) through (4):
 (iii) Cost effectiveness.
Manufactured homes are required to be elevated to the fullest extent practicable up to base flood level
Manufactured homes would be elevated to levels based on manufacturer specifications and applicable agency guidance
Ensures that manufactured homes are not elevated in an unsafe manor.  No additional cost

4.1 Executive Orders 11988 and 13690
      Under Executive Order 11988, all proposed Federal Actions are reviewed to determine if they are in, or have a potential impact to, a floodplain.  Any actions located in the floodplain initiate an 8-step decision-making process to evaluate the short-term and long-term impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.  Executive Order 11988 further requires agencies that have determined to conduct, support, or allow an action to be located in a floodplain to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development.  Factors such as actions of limited impact, actions taken to reduce flooding, or those of a temporary nature may warrant an altered or shortened decision-making process.
      Executive Order 13690 of January 30, 2015 amended Executive Order 11988 and established the FFRMS.  The FFRMS is intended to increase resilience against flooding, help preserve the natural values of floodplains, and create a flood risk management standard for structures, facilities, and infrastructure paid for by Federal funds.  Executive Order 13690 and the FFRMS changed the Executive Branch-wide guidance for defining the "floodplain" with respect to "federally funded projects" (i.e., actions involving the use of Federal funds for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to a structure or facility).  The FFRMS provides approaches to establishing the floodplain with respect to FEMA Federally Funded Projects, which are a subset of Federal Actions.  Some Federal Actions  -  such as grants for minimal repairs to structures or non-construction activities such as planning or training  -  would not be covered by the increased elevation requirements since these do not meet the definition of a FEMA Federally Funded Project.  In addition, with respect to all Federal actions, the FFRMS requires the use, where possible, of natural systems, ecosystem processes and nature-based approaches when identifying and evaluating alternatives to taking the action in the floodplain.
4.2 Changes Directed by Executive Order 13690
      Executive Order 13690 established the FFRMS and amended Executive Order 11988 to improve the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of flooding.  Flood losses are anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats.  Executive Order 13690 makes the following substantive changes to Executive Order 11988:
      oo Adds the requirement to, where possible, "use natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches when developing alternatives for consideration," for all actions proposed in a floodplain.
      oo Establishes criteria for the FFRMS floodplain and requires Federally Funded Projects to be elevated to the FFRMS floodplain rather than the BFE.
      oo Directs that the FFRMS floodplain will be established using one of the following approaches:
         1. The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using a climate-informed science approach that uses the best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science.  This approach  will also include an emphasis on whether the action is a critical action as one of the factors to be considered when conducting the analysis;
         2. The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using the freeboard value, reached by adding an additional 2 feet to the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation for non-critical actions and by adding an additional 3 feet to the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation for critical actions;
         3. The area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood; or
         4. The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.
      oo Allows agency heads to except actions from the FFRMS in the interest of national security, where actions are emergency actions, where application of the FFRMS is demonstrably inappropriate, or where agency action is a mission-critical requirement related to a national security interest or are emergency actions.  When an agency action is excepted, agency heads would rely on the area of land subject to the base flood.
      oo Defines critical action as any activity for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great.
      Executive Order 11988 has never applied to assistance provided for emergency work essential to save lives and protect property and public health and safety, performed pursuant to Sections 403 and 502 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 [42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 5170b and 5192].
4.3 Changes Included in Proposed Supplementary Policy
      FEMA is issuing a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register for a supplementary policy titled Guidance for Implementing the FFRMS contemporaneous with this analysis and the accompanying proposed rule.  The supplementary policy is intended to describe the FFRMS approaches that FEMA would use for evaluating FEMA Federally Funded Projects for floodplain implications.  The supplementary policy proposes the use of the FFRMS-FVA to establish the FFRMS elevation and floodplain.  For non-critical actions, the FVA elevation and floodplain would be determined by the elevation reached by adding an additional 2 feet to the 1 percent annual chance floodplain elevation.  For critical actions, the FFRMS-FVA elevation and floodplain would be determined by the elevation reached by adding an additional 3 feet to the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation.
      FEMA's supplementary policy proposes to allow optional use of the FFRMS-CISA for critical actions, but only if the elevation determined under CISA is higher than the elevation under the FVA.  Under this approach, FEMA and an applicant could evaluate the CISA, and at the election of the applicant, FEMA would use the CISA instead of the FVA to establish the FFRMS elevation and floodplain.
4.4 Other Changes
      FEMA proposes a number of other implementing changes and updates, including changes to the definitions at 44 CFR § 9.4 to reflect the new definitions required by Executive Order 13690 and the FFRMS.  These changes are described at length in the proposed rule preamble.
      Some of these new definitions are listed below because they pertain to this analysis.  These definitions are not associated with any economic costs; the cost of the definition change is captured where the definition is applied.
      1 Percent Annual Chance Flood or Base Flood:  FEMA proposes to retitle the current definition of "base flood" as "1 percent annual chance flood or base flood."  This reflects the fact that Executive Order 13690 uses the term "base flood" and the Revised Guidelines use the term "1 percent annual chance flood."  There is no substantive difference between the two terms and they may be used interchangeably.  The "1 percent annual chance flood" means the flood that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.  In the current definition of "base flood," the term is also equated with the "100-year flood," however, FEMA proposes to discontinue use of the term "100-year flood" because this term can cause confusion.  It can be interpreted to mean that the area will only flood once every 100 years instead of reflecting its true meaning, which is the annual risk of flood in the area.
      0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood:  FEMA proposes to define the term "0.2 percent annual chance flood" to mean the flood which has a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.  This was previously known as the "500-year flood."  FEMA proposes to use the term "0.2 percent annual chance flood" and discontinue using that term interchangeably with the term "500-year flood."  The term "500-year flood" can cause confusion as it could be interpreted to mean that the area will only flood once every 500 years, instead of reflecting its true meaning, which is the annual risk of flood in the area.
      0.2 Percent Annual Chance Floodplain:  FEMA proposes to define the term "0.2 percent annual chance floodplain" to mean the area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood.
      1 Percent Annual Chance Flood Elevation or Base Flood Elevation:  FEMA proposes to define the term "1 percent annual chance flood elevation or base flood elevation" to mean the computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the 1 percent annual chance flood or base flood.  FEMA also proposes to incorporate the explanation from the current definition of "base flood" about how the term is used in the NFIP to indicate the minimum level of flooding to be used by a community in the community's floodplain management regulations.  The elevation indicates how high to elevate a structure in order to protect it from the risk of flooding in a base flood.
      1 Percent Annual Chance Floodplain or Base Floodplain:  FEMA proposes to define the term "1 percent annual chance floodplain or base floodplain" to mean the area subject to flooding by the 1 percent annual chance flood or base flood.  A floodplain is generally a lowland or flat area near water that has a greater chance of flooding than higher areas and areas farther from water.  This definition would describe the minimum area that FEMA looks at when it determines whether an action would take place in a floodplain.
      Base Flood and Base Floodplain:  FEMA proposes to remove the definitions of the "base flood" and "base floodplain" as FEMA proposes to incorporate them in the definitions of the "1 percent annual chance flood or base flood" and "1 percent annual chance floodplain or base floodplain."
      Critical Action:  FEMA proposes to revise the definition of "critical action" from the regulations to remove the requirement that the minimum floodplain of concern in the event of a critical action is the 500-year floodplain.  There would no longer be a set requirement in regulation that an applicant use a particular approach to establishing the floodplain when the project is a critical action.  Instead, FEMA and the applicant would follow the sequence described in § 9.7 when making the floodplain determination.  FEMA would be required to determine whether the project meets the new definition of "Federally Funded Project" in § 9.4.  If the project is a Federally Funded Project, then FEMA would establish the floodplain by using one of the FFRMS approaches (which, pursuant to a supplementary FEMA policy, would require the applicant to consider whether an action is a critical action).  If the project is not a Federally Funded Project, then FEMA would use, at a minimum, the 1 percent annual chance floodplain for non-critical actions and the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain for critical actions.
      Emergency Work:  The current definition of "emergency actions" is emergency work essential to save lives and protect property and public health and safety performed under certain sections of the Stafford Act and corresponding FEMA regulations.  FEMA proposes to change the term to "emergency work" to clearly differentiate between the work under the specific sections of the Stafford Act that was exempted entirely from the requirements of Executive Order 11988 and the new exceptions to the application of the FFRMS (which include non-specific references to emergency actions) created by Executive Order 13690.  FEMA also proposes to update the citations to the specific sections of the Stafford Act and FEMA regulations, as the citations are outdated in the current definition.
      Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS):  FEMA proposes to add a definition of the "FFRMS," which is the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard established by Executive Order 13690 to be incorporated into existing processes used to implement Executive Order 11988.  FEMA proposes to add a definition for the FFRMS because this rule proposes to implement it and therefore refers to it throughout the proposed changes to Part 9.
      Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) Floodplain:  FEMA proposes to define the "FFRMS floodplain" consistent with the definition in Executive Order 13690, which is the floodplain that is established using one of four approaches:  CISA, FVA, 0.2PFA, and the elevation and flood hazard area that result from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.
         FEMA proposes to define the "CISA" as the elevation and flood hazard area that result from using the best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science.  This approach would also include an emphasis on whether the action is a critical action as one of the factors to be considered when conducting the analysis.
         FEMA proposes to define the "FVA" as the elevation and flood hazard area (the horizontal extent of the floodplain) that result from using the freeboard value, reached by adding an additional 2 feet to the BFE for non-critical actions and by adding an additional 3 feet to the BFE for critical actions.
         FEMA proposes to define the "0.2PFA" as the area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood.  The 0.2 percent annual chance flood is a flood that has a 0.2 percent chance of happening in any given year.  It is a flood that covers greater area that is less frequent than the 1 percent chance floodplain.
         Finally, FEMA proposes to add a fourth approach, the elevation and flood hazard area that result from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.
      FEMA Federally Funded Project:  FEMA proposes to add a definition of "FEMA Federally Funded Project" to mean actions where FEMA funds are used for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to a structure or facility.  FEMA's proposed definition mirrors the language in the FFRMS and the Revised Guidelines.
      Five Hundred Year Floodplain:  FEMA proposes to remove the definition of the five hundred year floodplain as a standalone term and designated floodplain and to instead substitute the term 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain.  The 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain is the floodplain covering an area where the chance of flood is 0.2 percent in any given year.
      Floodplain:  FEMA currently defines "floodplain" as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including, at a minimum, the area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.  FEMA proposes to revise the definition to remove the phrase "including, at a minimum, the area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year."  This is because the FFRMS expands the consideration from the 1 percent annual chance (base) floodplain.
         The current definition also states that wherever the term "floodplain" appears in Part 9, if a critical action is involved, "floodplain" means the area subject to inundation from a flood having a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in any given year (500-year floodplain).  FEMA proposes to remove this provision from the definition of floodplain because there is no longer a set requirement that an applicant use a particular approach to establishing the floodplain when there is a critical action.  Instead, FEMA and the applicant must follow the sequence described in § 9.7 when making the floodplain determination.  FEMA must determine whether the project meets the new definition of "FEMA Federally Funded Project" in § 9.4.  If the project is a FEMA Federally Funded Project, then FEMA must establish the floodplain by using one of the FFRMS approaches (which require the applicant to consider whether an action is a critical action).  If the project does not meet the definition of "FEMA Federally Funded Project" (i.e., the project is not "new construction, substantial improvement, or repairs to address substantial damage to a structure or facility"), then FEMA must use, at a minimum, the 1 percent annual chance floodplain for non-critical actions and the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain for critical actions.
         FEMA proposes to add that the floodplain may be more specifically categorized as the 1 percent annual chance (base) floodplain, the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain, or the FFRMS floodplain (as defined above).  "Floodplain" is a flexible, general term, but in establishing the correct floodplain to use, it would be necessary to determine whether the action is a Federally Funded Project and whether it is a critical action.
      Nature-Based Approaches:  FEMA proposes to add a definition of "nature-based approaches."  Executive Order 13690 added a provision requiring agencies to use nature-based approaches where possible and this term has not previously been defined.  FEMA proposes to define nature-based approaches as the features (sometimes referred to as "green infrastructure") designed to mimic natural processes and provide specific services such as reducing flood risk and/or improving water quality.  Nature-based approaches are created by human design (in concert with and to accommodate natural processes) and generally, but not always, must be maintained in order to reliably provide the intended level of service.  Nature-based approaches are sometimes referred to as green infrastructure and may include, for example, green roofs, or downspout disconnection that reroutes drainage pipes to rain barrels, cisterns, or permeable areas instead of the storm sewer.  The proposed definition mirrors the language of the WRC Revised Guidelines.
      New Construction:  FEMA proposes to remove the parenthetical "including the placement of a mobile home" from the definition of new construction because retaining the clause would have unintended effects, given the new definition of FEMA Federally Funded Projects.  The application of the FFRMS is required for any action which meets the definition of "Federally Funded Project."  "FEMA Federally Funded Project" is defined as an action where FEMA funds are used for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to a structure or facility.  If FEMA continued to define the placement of a mobile home as "new construction," it would be required to apply the FFRMS to any placement of a mobile home.  As described further in the discussion of § 9.13, FEMA does not intend to require the application of the FFRMS in the placement of mobile homes for the purpose of temporary housing.
5. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF THIS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
      This is an analysis of the costs and benefits resulting from the proposed changes to 44 CFR Part 9.  Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, FEMA assesses the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and ensures that the regulatory approach chosen maximizes net benefits.  Costs and benefits are quantified whenever possible.
      The primary focus of this analysis is to account for the costs and benefits associated with the expansion of the floodplain from the 1 percent annual chance floodplain to the FFRMS-FVA floodplain for new construction, substantial improvements, and repair of substantial damage to structures paid for with Federal funds.  The scope of this analysis is restricted to FEMA programs.
      The proposed FFRMS elevation and floodproofing requirements would apply to FEMA Federally Funded Projects in the applicable FFRMS floodplain.  The primary costs associated with this proposed rule would apply to FEMA grant programs; FEMA facilities may be affected in the future as well.  Grant programs affected by the proposed rule are IA, PA, HMA, and GPD.  Non-grant programs include FEMA facilities and the IPAWS.  The effects to each program are explained in the cost section of this analysis (Section 9).
      Using historical data from affected FEMA programs, the primary estimated costs of this rule resulted from the increased vertical floodplain and the corresponding horizontal expansion of the floodplain.  This rule would also have administrative burdens for FEMA.
6. ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS
6.1 Freeboard Values
      The use of the FFRMS-FVA requires that construction located in the FFRMS floodplain must be elevated by at least 2 feet above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation.  This would entail an increase of 2 feet over current requirements for FEMA Federally Funded Projects located within the current 1 percent annual chance floodplain.  For areas outside of the 1 percent annual chance floodplain but within the FVA floodplain, structures would need to be elevated to a level that is 2 feet above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation.  For instance, if a structure is located in the FVA floodplain on ground that is 1 foot above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation, then that structure would need to be elevated by 1 foot.  Therefore, not all structures would need to be elevated by the full 2 feet.
      Several communities and States have existing freeboard requirements, although most of these are below the freeboard requirement of the FFRMS-FVA.  So, while there would be additional costs, they would be lower in areas with existing freeboard requirements.
6.2 FEMA Programs Affected by the FFRMS
      The proposed FFRMS elevation requirements would apply to FEMA Federally Funded Projects in the applicable FFRMS floodplain.  The primary costs associated with this proposed rule would be due to the expansion of the floodplain using the FVA and the corresponding elevation and floodproofing requirements.  These costs primarily apply to projects funded through FEMA's grant programs.  FEMA facilities may be affected in the future as well.  Grant recipients would be required to comply with the new standard by elevating or floodproofing projects located in the expanded FFRMS floodplain.  Specific grant programs include IA, PA, and HMA.
      The proposed freeboard value is 2 feet in the majority of cases.  For projects that are considered critical actions, the freeboard value would be increased to 3 feet.  Based on analysis of the available data, approximately 5 percent of PA Grants for Category E would be considered critical actions (including hospitals, fire stations, police stations, jails, emergency operations centers, hazmat storage, and treatment plants) under the proposed rule.  HMA critical actions account for 2.2 percent of total projects.  IA is awarded to individuals and households after a disaster, and does not cover activities that are considered critical actions.
6.3 Federal Cost Share
      Cost sharing is a portion of a total sponsored project's costs that are paid from sources other than the funds provided by the Federal Government.  Cost sharing is required for most FEMA grant programs.  For FEMA programs, the cost share is typically a percentage of the Project Amount.  Using historical data from the PA, HMA, and GPD programs, the average cost share for FEMA grants has been 75 percent paid for by FEMA and the remaining 25 percent paid for by the grant recipient.  In this analysis, FEMA used the total amount for each grant and split the costs between FEMA and the grantees using the average 75 percent cost share.  However, not all grants are subject to the 75 percent cost share.  Some grants have different cost shares, but 75 percent is the most common.  FEMA could not easily extract the data on the cost of all individual projects; however, FEMA uses grants data to estimate the Project Amount.
      FEMA grants would cover a portion of the compliance costs of the FFRMS.  The Federal Government would incur 75 percent of the costs of this rule (not including administrative costs), while the public (including State, Tribal, and local governments) would incur the other 25 percent.  There are, however, some exceptions.  IA's PHC does not have a cost share so FEMA pays 100 percent of the cost.  Conversely, MHU elevation must be paid fully by an IA recipient who ultimately purchases the MHU.
6.4 General Assumptions Used in This Analysis
      FEMA made the following assumptions in completing its analysis:
         * The PV of cost and benefit flows are calculated in this analysis.  PV calculations permit comparisons of cost and benefit streams that involve different time paths.
         * FEMA used the year 2015 to determine the proper wage rate.  Wage rates will vary based on locality and job description.  A majority of staff that would conduct floodplain determinations and implementation work would be located in the FEMA Headquarters in Washington DC; therefore, for Federal wage rates, FEMA uses the DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality rate.
         * All costs and benefits in this analysis are in 2015 dollars unless otherwise stated.
   7. BASELINE
      Current Federal floodplain management criteria are governed by Executive Order 11988: "Floodplain Management", and associated government-wide policy.  Under this Executive Order, Federal agencies are required to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.  FEMA has processes in place for evaluating the impacts of Federal Actions in or affecting floodplains to implement Executive Order 11988.
      Under current FEMA regulations set out in 44 CFR Part 9, the floodplain is defined as the 100-year floodplain (1 percent annual chance).  New construction or substantial improvement of structures located in this floodplain must be elevated to or above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation, or for non-residential structures floodproofed below the BFE.  The floodplain for critical actions however, is defined as the 500-year floodplain (0.2 percent annual chance).  Under current regulations, structures that are being newly constructed or substantially improved already have to elevate to the BFE.  Therefore any costs getting to the BFE would not be a cost of this rule, as they would occur without the implementation of the proposed rule to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 11988 and FEMA's current regulations.
      More stringent floodplain management criteria exist in many States and counties.  According to a report based on the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration's (FIMA) Community Rating System (CRS), 22 States and an additional 596 localities have freeboard requirements that exceed current Federal standards.  However of these, only 3 States have freeboard requirements of 2 feet or more and 232 out of 596 localities have freeboard requirements of at least 2 feet for non-critical facilities.  See Table 8.
   8. HISTORICAL DATA ON FLOODS
      FEMA is proposing to implement the FFRMS-FVA to reduce damage to structures that are funded by the Federal Government as well as prevent the loss of life in these structures.  Historically, floods and related disasters have been very costly in terms of damage and lives lost.  Below are several examples of large-scale flooding events.  These are expected to become more common in the future due to climate change.  Table 6 displays the approximate costs associated with some recent large scale flooding events.  To mitigate future damage from the expected increasing number of flooding events, flood resiliency in the United States needs to be improved  -  changes such as this proposed rule would help to improve resiliency.
      The most costly flooding events are generally associated with hurricanes and other severe weather events.  Damage and lives lost in hurricanes can be attributed to many causes besides flooding, including wind and debris damage.  Damage estimates for hurricanes cannot be separated between damage from flooding versus other causes such as wind and storm surge.  In addition, different methods exist for calculating a disaster's impacts, which lead to correspondingly different loss estimates for the same event.
      Three of the largest flood events in recent history include:
         * Hurricane Katrina, which occurred on August 29, 2005 in southeast Louisiana and surrounding areas and was displayed as a Category 3 hurricane.
         * Superstorm Sandy, which occurred on October 29, 2012 in New Jersey and the surrounding areas and was displayed as a tropical cyclone with hurricane force winds.
         * The Great Flood of 1993, which occurred from May to October in 1993 in the Midwest along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and tributaries and was displayed as heavy rains and flooding.  This was the most costly non-hurricane flooding event in U.S. history.
Table 6.  Costs of Historical large-scale floods (2015$)

                               Hurricane Katrina
                               Superstorm Sandy
                              Great Flood of 1993
Estimated property damage
$218 billion^
$77.4 billion[#]
$19.7-26.2 billion*
Estimated deaths
1,245 people^
285 people[#]
50 people*
FEMA contributions to individuals and households
$8.13 billion^
$1.45 billion[#]
$609 million*
FEMA contributions for public works
$18.2 billion^
$13.7 billion[#]
$851.3 million *
FEMA contributions to mitigation
$1.68 billion
$828.1 million[#]
$259 million*
^FEMA Press Release July 30, 2015.  Release Number:  HQ-15-051.  http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2015/07/30/fema-outlines-decade-progress-after-hurricane-katrina.
[#]Sandy Recovery Office.  https://www.fema.gov/sandy-recovery-office.
*The 1993 Great Midwest Flood:  Voices 10 Years Later.  http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1515-20490-1306/voices_anthology.pdf.
   9. BURDENS FROM RULEMAKING
This section identifies the costs of the proposed rule.  First, the costs of using natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches are discussed.  Secondly, this analysis considers the costs of determining the extent of the FFRMS-FVA floodplain, administrative costs associated with implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and the costs to FEMA and grant recipients of implementing the rule.  FEMA's IA, PA, HMA, GPD, and other programs are cost components of this proposed rule.
9.1 Using Natural Systems, Ecosystem Processes, and Nature-Based Approaches when Developing Alternatives for Consideration
      This rule proposes to require the use, where possible, of nature-based approaches when developing alternatives for consideration that would accomplish the same purpose as a considered action, but which have less potential to affect or be affected by the floodplain.  Common examples of a nature-based approach would be replacing concrete drainage systems with natural drainage, or covering an area with plants to absorb water and reduce runoff.  The use of nature-based approaches would apply to all Federal Actions, not just new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to structures or facilities.
      Currently, Executive Order 11988 does not require the use of natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches.  Executive Order 11988 requires consideration of alternatives that would avoid the floodplain, wherever practicable, and alternatives that would avoid adverse effects and incompatible development.  In Step 3 of the eight-step process, having determined that a proposed action is to be located in the floodplain, the agency must evaluate alternatives to include (1) carrying out the proposed action outside the floodplain, (2) other means which accomplish the same purpose as the proposed action, and (3) no action.  Currently, 44 CFR 9.9(b)(2) requires FEMA to identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to carrying out a proposed action in the floodplain, including alternative actions which serve the same purpose as the proposed action, but which have less potential to affect or be affected by the floodplains and wetlands.  But the regulation does not specify that such alternatives should be nature-based approaches.  The proposed rule would add that in developing the alternative actions, FEMA should use, where possible, natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches.  It is currently FEMA practice to use nature-based approaches as alternatives to relocating within the floodplain.  FEMA helps applicants to consider project alternatives during application development.  Applicants would incorporate the consideration of nature based approaches in the process they currently use to consider the other alternatives required in Step 3 of the eight-step process.  To assess whether a nature based approach was possible, an applicant would need to determine if a nature based approach could meet the purpose of the project and then evaluate the nature-based approach against natural, social, economic, and legal constraints.
      FEMA is unable to quantify the costs associated with nature-based approaches because applicants have the flexibility to choose from a variety of different approaches and there is not one set standard that qualifies as a nature-based approach.  Additionally, nature-based approaches vary in complexity and size and would be fact-specific and dependent on the nature of the design and purpose of the project.
      If FEMA were to select an alternative action using a nature-based approach, the action may produce benefits by mitigating risks posed to or by those actions, or creating improvements over time to the natural and beneficial values of floodplains.  FEMA requests comments from the public regarding these assumptions.
9.2 Climate-Informed Science Approach
      CISA is one of the methods for determining the FFRMS floodplain in Executive Order 13690.  FEMA proposes to allow optional use of the CISA for critical actions, but only if the CISA is higher than the elevation established under the FVA.  FEMA anticipates limited use of the CISA initially.  However, in the circumstance where the 0.2PFA is higher than the FVA, FEMA would encourage applicants to use the CISA to reduce the possibility that FEMA would be lowering the standard of protection for critical actions which previously would have been required to be resilient to the 0.2PFA elevation.  Currently, limited actionable data exists for this approach making it difficult to estimate the cost for CISA until it becomes technologically feasible.  As the technology becomes available, FEMA expects CISA to be implemented more broadly.  However, for the time period covered by this analysis, FEMA assumes all projects would use the FVA.  FEMA has therefore included no costs associated with the CISA in this analysis.  CISA may ultimately become cost-beneficial as compared to the FVA, because the CISA uses a more site-specific approach to predict flood risk based on future conditions, while the FVA sets an across-the-board standard that may result in over- or under-protection in some cases.  FEMA requests comments from the public regarding these assumptions.
9.3 Elevation and Floodproofing Cost Data
      Cost data based on increased elevation and floodproofing requirements were estimated using historical grant award data from the affected FEMA grant programs.  The grant award data include both the amount provided by FEMA to grant recipients as well as the cost share amount the grant recipient is required to cover; for purposes of this Regulatory Evaluation, FEMA refers to the total of these as the Project Amount.  FEMA used IA data for the years 2006-2015, PA data from 2006-2015, and HMA data from 2005-2014 to estimate the future impacts of the proposed rule on these programs.  Further description of projects covered by these programs is provided in section 9.5.
      Program data used for this analysis are the best available data for this purpose.  However, there are limitations.  While grant data for the PA program includes a data field to identify projects within the 1 percent annual chance floodplain, FEMA was not able to determine the location of IA projects in the floodplain because this data is not readily available in FEMA databases.  All HMA projects in the data examined were located in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain.
      FEMA estimates the cost of increased freeboard as a percent increase in the cost of construction.  FEMA obtained cost estimates for 1-foot, 2-foot, and 3-foot freeboard elevation of structures from an NFIP report on the cost-effectiveness of including freeboard when building new residential structures in coastal areas.  This study is discussed in more detail in the benefits section (section 10.1.1).  Although this rule covers different types of structures, FEMA does not have a data source that can be used to estimate elevation costs broadly.  FEMA is using this source because it is the best available.  The NFIP report provides the percent increases in the cost of residential construction when freeboard is included into the design of a housing construction project (see Table 7).  Projects that would be subject to the freeboard requirements proposed in this rule are actions involving the use of Federal funds for new construction or substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to the structure or facility.
Table 7.  Percent Increases in Cost of Construction for Freeboard
                                Freeboard (ft)
       Low Estimated Cost of Freeboard (% increase in construction cost)
      High Estimated Cost of Freeboard (% increase in construction cost)
                                 BFE + 1 foot
                                      0.2
                                      3.9
                                 BFE + 2 feet
                                      0.3
                                      4.8
                                 BFE + 3 feet
                                      0.7
                                      6.8
      The NFIP report presents ranges of percentage cost increase for structures in each of the flood-risk zones of the 1 percent annual chance floodplain.  The cost estimates are based on these ranges.  FEMA uses the lowest cost estimate and the highest cost estimate to determine the cost range for elevation projects.  FEMA discusses these cost estimates in detail in section 9.5, Freeboard Value Approach.
      For some projects, elevation may not be feasible.  These include large structures that are being substantially improved, such as a hospital or communications tower.  In some cases, for non-residential structures, floodproofing may be used.  Floodproofing is not permitted for habitable spaces.  Dry floodproofing involves sealing all areas below the freeboard elevation so that they are watertight.  Wet floodproofing involves applying contingent measures to a structure, such as properly anchoring the structure, that prevent or provide resistance to damage from flooding while allowing floodwaters to enter the structure or area.  Floodproofing involves significantly more risk than elevation, but is also less costly.  The decision to floodproof rather than elevate is made by the grantee.  This decision is made based on many project-specific factors, such as cost, level of risk, and feasibility of elevating.  Based on HMA project data, FEMA determined that past HMA floodproofing projects were on average approximately one-half the cost of HMA elevation projects.  FEMA requests comments and any available data on the cost of floodproofing and comments on FEMA's methodology for estimating the cost of floodproofing.
      HMA provides grants for mitigation measures of existing structures and the data used for this analysis included elevation as well as wet and dry floodproofing for various types of structures, including public buildings and private residences.
9.4 Floodplain Expansion Data
      Because of the varied topography and hydrography of the United States, it is very difficult to provide an estimate of how much the floodplain would expand as a result of adding freeboard values nationwide.  In some areas with relatively flat topography, a 2-foot vertical expansion would translate to a mile or more of horizontal expansion.  In others, this same vertical increase would only lead to a couple feet of horizontal expansion.  This is displayed in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Figure 1.  The FFRMS-FVA Illustration A

Figure 2.  The FFRMS-FVA Illustration B

      FEMA maps do not currently show the horizontal expansion of the floodplain that would result from application of the FFRMS-FVA.  For the purposes of estimating the size of the expansion of the floodplain, FEMA examined the area of the floodplains in 24 counties with varied topography in Washington, Georgia, California, North Carolina, and South Carolina where the expanded floodplain was delineated due to the creation of optional datasets as part of a Flood Insurance Study (FIS).  These datasets present floodplains associated with the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation plus freeboard values in coastal areas.  For each county, FEMA measured the square mileage of the BFE and the square mileage of the horizontal extent of the floodplain using 1-, 2-, and 3-foot freeboard values for this available information.  Table 10 presents the average horizontal expansion of the floodplain due to the freeboard levels.
Table 8.  Percentage increase in floodplain square mileage as a result of freeboard values
Scenario
                            Number Counties w/ Data
                                SFHA (sq. mi.)
                          SFHA w/ Increase (sq. mi.)
                                  % Increase
BFE + 1-foot
                                      21
                                    1,739.8
                                    1,894.5
                                      8.9
BFE + 2-foot
                                      20
                                    1,697.1
                                    1,981.4
                                     16.8
BFE + 3-foot
                                      24
                                    1,796.0
                                    2,239.9
                                     24.7
      Appendix A contains the findings for each of the 24 counties:  City and County of San Francisco CA, Alameda County CA, Napa County CA, Sonoma County CA, Solano County CA, New Hanover County NC, Pender County NC, Brunswick County NC, Onslow County NC, Pamlico County NC, Craven County NC, Hyde County NC, Carteret County NC, Beaufort County NC, Horry County SC, Colleton County SC, Nassau County FL, Flagler County FL, Grays Harbor WA, Charlton GA, Chatham GA, Douglas GA, Effingham GA, and Forsyth GA.  Because of the limitations of the data (including a lack of data on non-coastal areas and areas that are not mapped) and the small number of counties used, these estimates and the average size increase of the floodplain FEMA uses for the purposes of this analysis may not adequately represent the floodplain expansion nationwide under the proposed rule.  FEMA requests comments from the public regarding these assumptions.
      Many communities have existing freeboard requirements.  The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) compiled a list of State and local governments that have freeboard requirements.  According to the ASFPM analysis, 22 States and an additional 596 localities have freeboard requirements ranging from 1 to 3 feet, covering a total population of 194,569,811 people, or an estimated 61.99 percent (194,695,811/313,873,685) of the U.S. population.  Table 9 shows the percentage of the U.S. population living in areas with existing freeboard requirements.  FEMA uses this information later in the analysis to account for the costs and benefits of existing freeboard requirements that would be applied in the absence of this rule.
Table 9.  Non-Cumulative U.S. Population in areas with existing freeboard requirements
                                Freeboard Value
                       Percentage of U.S. Population (%)
                                 BFE + 1 foot
                                     45.44
                                 BFE + 2 feet
                                     15.12
                                 BEF + 3 feet
                                     1.43
9.5 Freeboard Value Approach
      The cost of the FFRMS-FVA is due to the increased vertical height of the floodplain.  The freeboard requirement means that FEMA Federally Funded Projects must be floodproofed or elevated at least 2 feet above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation (3 feet for critical actions).  Because the FFRMS floodplain expands horizontally as it increases vertically, the freeboard requirement would expand the size of the floodplain as well as increasing elevation requirements (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).  Projects located outside of the 1 percent annual chance floodplain would incur costs to comply with increased elevation requirements if they are located within the expanded horizontal FFRMS floodplain and are not at or above the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation plus the freeboard elevation.
      To meet these proposed freeboard requirements, a structure that is located at a ground level that has an elevation of 1 foot above the BFE would be required to be floodproofed or elevated an additional foot.  A structure located at a ground elevation equal to the border of the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation would be required to be floodproofed or elevated 2 feet.  The elevation requirements decrease as the location gets farther from the 1 percent annual chance floodplain, until the grade elevation reaches the elevation of the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation plus the freeboard value, at which point elevation would no longer be required. For structures in the FFRMS-FVA floodplain with basements, it may be necessary to abandon and fill the basement in addition to elevating the structure in order to meet the requirement.
      Several State and local governments have existing freeboard requirements.  According to data compiled by the ASFPM, 45.44 percent of the total U.S. population is located in areas that have at least a 1-foot freeboard requirement, 15.12 percent of the total U.S. population have at least a 2-foot requirement, and 1.43 percent of the total U.S. population have a 3-foot requirement.  These existing freeboard requirements have been taken into consideration when calculating the costs of implementing this proposed rule.