ASFPM Resolutions

From time to time, the ASFPM adopts resolutions to indicate its stand on important floodplain management issues. Use the links below to see current resolutions.

Resolution on Financial Authority for ASFPM (01/06)
Resolution In Support of the United States Integrated Ocean Observing System (8/05)
Resolution on US Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary Report (5/04)
Commemorating the 125th Anniversary of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (4/04)
Resolution On Map Modernization
In Support of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program
Resolution On Retaining the Identity of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
In Support of Improving Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC)
Increasing the Stability of the National Flood Insurance Fund (11/00)
Funding For FEMA's Map Modernization Program (7/00)
Community Assistance Program (CAP) Funding (7/00)
Suggestions for Modifications to the Increased Cost of Compliance Provision (7/99)
Resolution to Expand the "Managing State" Concept for the HMGP (7/99)
Mapping (5/98)
Streamlining HMGP (5/98)
Post Flood Mitigation Opportunities (12/97)
CRS Credit for State Mandates (4/97)
Increased Stream Gaging for Flood Warning Resolution (4/97)
Resolution on WRDA (6/96)
Resolution on Substantial Damage and Improvement (11/94)
State Hazard Mitigation Teams (5/92)
Flood Hazard/Floodway Maps (6/91)
Coastal Committee Resolution #3 (1/91)
Coastal Committee Resolution #1 (12/90)
Coastal Committee Resolution #2 (12/90)
Map Revisions in Filled Portions of Flood Hazard Areas (10/90)
One Foot Freeboard to the First Floor in Flood Hazard Areas (6/90)
Resolution on NFIP Mapping (8/89)
Dam Failure Analysis on FIRMs (6/90)
Digital FIRMs (8/90)
Floodplain Management Policy Statement (5/88)
Resolution on High Risk Areas (6/84)
Resolution on Section 1316 (6/84)
Resolution on Mitigation (4/83)

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, post-flood mitigation has proven to be an invaluable part of local and state floodplain management programs; and
WHEREAS, post-flood mitigation activities will not only reduce flood losses but will reduce federal expenditures for disaster assistance, flood insurance claims and flood control projects;

NOW, THEREFORE ,BE IT RESOLVED by this Association that:

1. It is recognized by the membership that securing federal funding of post-flood mitigation activities is an important objective of this Association.

2. The Association recommends an increased level of support from all federal post-flood mitigation funding agency. Special attention is needed on the following:

a. The annual budget for FEMA's Section 1362 Program should be increased.
b. FEMA should create incentives in the National Flood Insurance Program for mitigation efforts through a community rating system and financial support for building protection measures such as acquisition and floodproofing through changes in the insurance policy coverage and claims rules.
c. Special funding is needed for implementing recommendations in post-flood mitigation reports as proposed by S.2250.

3. The Association's Mitigation and Flood Insurance Committees will work to implement this resolution, to support and assist FEMA, and to improve the other federal mitigation funding programs.

ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 1983.

RESOLUTION 1984-1: HIGH RISK AREAS

WHEREAS, the Association of State Floodplain Managers has completed preliminary work to identify high risk areas and analyze the status of floodplain management of these areas; and
WHEREAS, simplifying assumptions for floodplain management made by Federal agencies, States, and local governments in the late 1960's have resulted in serious understatement of hazards in 20-30% of the Nation's floodplains; and
WHEREAS, these simplifying assumptions include: 1) Flood stage is the only damage factor, 2) Only clear water flooding occurs, and 3) channel (or shore line) configuration is stable; and
WHEREAS, these simplifying assumptions, while necessary at the time, failed to consider: 1) Velocity, 2) Debris in the water (ice, rocks, trees, etc.), 3) Rapidity and duration of the flooding, and 4) Erosion and other changes in the flood channel; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these assumptions, flood mapping, regulatory standards, and insurance rating are inadequate for a significant portion of the Nation's floodplains; and
WHEREAS, failure to correctly map and regulate high risk areas, without consideration of additional risk and loss potential is causing and will cause an escalation of insurance claims and disaster losses; and
WHEREAS, growth potential is substantial in high risk areas including: barrier islands (e.g., much of the developed Gulf and Atlantic coastline); areas subject to subsidence (e.g., New Orleans and Houston - Galveston): alluvial fans (30% of the arid Southwest and Colorado); and areas prone to mud floods (California coast and Wasatch front); and
WHEREAS, increased market penetration for flood insurance in high risk areas will likely lead to massive increases in losses (out of proportion to premiums) in high growth areas such as Los Angeles County, Clark County, New Orleans, Houston - Galveston, Denver and Salt Lake City, unless insurance premiums and land management standards are adjusted to reflect the special risk; and
WHEREAS, the state of knowledge with regard to mapping and management of high risk areas has progressed sufficiently in the last 15 years to permit a variety of low-cost actions to reduce losses including mapping as part of the remaining map studies and remapping effort, upgraded land management, and increased insurance rates; and
WHEREAS, there are continued methodological problems which need research and field testing;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Association recommends:

That FEMA, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and states, develop a national policy for addressing areas where special risk factors (velocity, debris, and unstable channels) pose significant threats to life and property.
That such a policy supplement rather than replace existing policies pertaining to flood stage.
That an interagency taskforce be established to develop this policy with Association assistance.
That such a policy not only recognize the importance of such areas but set forth a process to develop improved maps, land management standards, actuarially-sound insurance policies, and post-disaster mitigation plans and guidelines.
That such a policy be based upon further research and investigation that will:
- Examine, in depth, disaster payments and insurance claims for high risk areas to determine the magnitude of existing losses.
- Determine growth potential in these areas (using the Donnelly Study and other approaches) and future damage potential including potential losses due to increased flood insurance penetration.
- Determine the effectiveness of land management techniques in such areas (e.g., elevation on pilings vs. elevation on fill) and need improvement through post disaster surveys and laboratory modeling.
- Determine cost-effective combined approaches for individual types of areas including mapping, land management standards, insurance, etc., through demonstration projects. These might best be initiated in communities and states in need of immediate assistance and willing to assist in these efforts.

Adopted this 15th day of June, 1984 at the annual meeting of Association of State Floodplain Managers in Portland, Maine.

ADOPTED JUNE 15, 1984.

RESOLUTION 1984-5: SECTION 1316

WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has the responsibility of requiring local governments to enforce the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program; and
WHEREAS, Section 1316 of the National Insurance Act stipulates that flood insurance coverage should be denied for buildings constructed in violation of local or State laws, regulations or ordinances related to development of flood prone areas; and
WHEREAS, Section 1316 can be a valuable tool for enforcing floodplain regulations; and
WHEREAS, enforcement tools (other than suspension) are needed to help the Federal Emergency Management Agency and State governments to promote proper enforcement of floodplain regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's current interpretation of Section 1316 does not allow state and federal officials to submit Section 1316 requests for building that are in violation of local floodplain regulations; and
WHEREAS, local officials are unlikely to submit Section 1316 requests when they have made errors in the enforcement of their floodplain regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and State NFIP Coordinating agencies are charged with the responsibility of monitoring local governments for compliance with the NFIP regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by this Association that:

Section 1316 be changed to allow local, state, or federal officials to recommend denial of flood insurance coverage on buildings found to be in violation of local or state laws or the regulations of the NFIP.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency expedite the adoption of procedures for implementation of Section 1316.

Adopted this 15th day of June, 1984 at the annual meeting of Association of State Floodplain Managers in Portland, Maine.

ADOPTED JUNE 15, 1984.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT POLICY STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Average annual flood losses in the United States have increased steadily throughout this century. In the 1960's and 1970's, with the recognition of this trend, a more sensible approach to the development of the nation's floodplains began to emerge. This approach was founded on the need to wisely manage as-yet undeveloped areas that are subject to flood hazards as well as to mitigate damage to existing development. A comprehensive approach to flood problems, combining nonstructural measures with engineered protective projects, is essential for maximum effectiveness and broad public acceptance. To their credit, the federal government and many states and communities have adopted goals and established policies to provide for the wise use of floodplains and related resources.

STATEMENT OF POSITION

The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) supports comprehensive nonstructural and structural management of the nation's watersheds and floodplains and their related land and water resources. This approach aims to reduce flood hazards and the consequent property damage and loss of human life. To reach this goal the public and private sectors must:

Prevent new development and redevelopment within a watershed from creating or aggravating flood losses.
Reduce damages to existing development with mitigation measures that do not aggravate flooding elsewhere.
Preserve and protect the natural and cultural values of the floodplain.
Use multiple, coordinated techniques.

STATEMENT OF STRATEGY

The ASFPM will promote comprehensive nonstructural and structural floodplain management through the following activities.

Obtaining Adequate Maps
Maps and related data are basic to the effective administration of local floodplain management ordinances. The ASFPM will work to ensure that flood hazard data and map ping are adequate by promoting improvements in the quality and accuracy of the maps, in the maintenance of up-to-date maps and data, in the identification and mapping of special problem areas, and in the computerization of map data.
Sharing Information
The ASFPM will share and disseminate information about successful flood loss reduction techniques and lessons learned from projects, methods, and procedures used or implemented elsewhere. To do this, the ASFPM will use its newsletter and its annual and special conferences, and also will develop a resource center.
Improving State Programs
Although the focus and primary responsibility for floodplain management must necessarily be at the local level, communities need information and assistance that often can best be provided by the state. The ASFPM will work to upgrade state capabilities in floodplain management, hazard mitigation, and other flood loss reduction activities by providing encouragement, sharing experience and knowledge, developing training programs for state personnel, and promoting coordination and cooperation among all state programs with responsibility for nonstructural and/or structural activities.
Research
Knowledge of the role and importance of floodplains and wetlands is far from complete. The ASFPM will seek new methods to prevent and reduce flood damage and to safeguard the many irreplaceable resources and natural processes that occur in flood plains. The ASFPM will do this by identifying needed research, evaluating the practical effectiveness of proposed research, and supporting implementation of worthwhile projects.
Improving Local Programs
Land use authority and responsibility rests with local government, which must care fully monitor activities within its jurisdiction to prevent unwise development and minimize potential damage to existing development. While the onsite perspective can only exist at the local level, outside encouragement and support are essential. The ASFPM will support local needs and interests by providing technical assistance on federal floodplain management and hazard mitigation programs, developing training programs for local officials, and promoting and supporting federal and state financial assistance for local flood loss reduction activities.
Educating the Public
Although it has increased considerably in recent years, the level of public under standing of and concern about flood problems is not yet adequate. The ASFPM will work to educate the public about the hazards of unwise floodplain development and the measures that can be taken to prevent and reduce flood damages. The ASFPM will cooperate with all levels of government and the private sector to inform people about ways to reduce flood damage, advocate the wise use of valuable floodplain land and related water resources, and promote and foster activities to increase public aware ness of problems associated with flooding.
Improving Federal Programs
The ASFPM will provide suggestions and feedback to federal agencies on how their pro grams can better prevent and reduce flood damages. The ASFPM will work with federal agencies and Congressional committees to coordinate related programs, will promote the benefits of floodplain management, and will encourage expansion of those programs that will result in the greatest reduction in flood losses and the best utilization of floodplains and wetlands.
Cooperating with other Organizations
The ASFPM will coordinate its work with that of other organizations and agencies involved in resource protection, planning, and emergency management.
Promoting Private Sector Involvement
The ASFPM will promote the involvement of the private sector in flood damage reduction by earnestly soliciting its cooperation, coordination, and assistance; by sup porting government programs that involve the private sector; and by encouraging the private sector's direct participation in ASFPM activities.

THIS POLICY STATEMENT WAS CREATED UNDER A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASFPM ON MAY 15, 1988.

MAPPING & ENGINEERING STANDARDS COMMITTEE RESOLUTION

ISSUE: The Federal Emergency Management Agency has expended great effort to map all special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for nearly 20,000 communities. These maps need regular and routine updating. Inaccurate mapping results in uninsured flood losses, federal costs for disaster assistance, and taxpayer costs to rebuild infrastructure losses. Changes in engineering and mapping techniques are needed to reduce taxpayer costs and make the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) actuarially sound. This continuing effort must be shared at all levels of government.

WHEREAS:

Many homes and businesses outside of identified special flood hazard areas are flooded annually, and;
Many of these are unidentified special flood hazard areas because:
1. The drainage area is small; or
2. There were few buildings when the map was produced and pressure to develop was light; or
3. Development in the surrounding area has increased the runoff characteristics and thus increased the floodplain area; and
Homes and businesses outside the SFHAs are eligible for low cost flood insurance and federal aid following a flood disaster; and
Regulations to ensure new development and substantial improvements are properly elevated are effective only where the map properly depicts the special flood hazard area; and
Accurate ratings for the sale of flood insurance policies is only possible where the map properly depicts the special flood hazard area.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Flood insurance studies must define flood hazard areas for all water courses or water bodies regardless of the presence of development and regardless of the size of the drainage basin (approximate delineations are adequate for rural undeveloped areas).
Future growth should be considered in determining the floodplain limits in all restudies.
Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be required as an integral part of new subdivision plats by the local or state unit of government with approval authority, and the data used to supplement and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Stormwater management plans developed to address flooding problems must also identify the residual floodplain following construction of the stormwater drainage facilities, and the data used to update and modify the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
180 Day Post-Disaster Reports and Section 409 Hazard Mitigation Reports subsequent to a major flood should include a map describing the area inundated and any flooded areas outside the A-zone added to the communities' Flood Insurance Rate Map.

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASFPM ON AUGUST 15, 1989.

MAPPING & ENGINEERING STANDARDS COMMITTEE RESOLUTION

WHEREAS,

Dams pose a threat of flooding to areas downstream; and
There is a need to make the general public aware of the potential for loss of life and property which could result from dam failures; and
State and local emergency management agencies are responsible for developing emergency action plans (EAPs); and
FEMA is responsible for providing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for local units of government; and
The area that would be impacted by a dam failure can be determined; and
Mapping the hydraulic shadow of dams would provide needed information to emergency managers to develop EAPs; and
Mapping the hydraulic shadow of dams would discourage downstream development, thereby helping prevent a LOW HAZARD DAM from becoming a HIGH HAZARD DAM; and
The Subcommittee on Federal and Non Federal Coordination of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety has recommended that FEMA take certain actions;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. supports the recommendation outlined in the report of the Subcommittee on Federal and Non Federal Coordination of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety; and
All future FISs and restudies include dam failure analyses; and
All Federal Agencies that have performed dam failure analyses should provide the profiles and maps to FEMA.

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASFPM ON JUNE 13, 1990.

ASFPM RESOLUTION PREPARED BY MAPPING & ENGINEERING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

WHEREAS:

The ASFPM recognizes an essential FEMA role in producing digital, edited map coverage of flood hazard areas in order to reduce flood losses through floodplain management and the flood insurance program;
One goal of the ASFPM is to improve maps for floodplain management, including the updating and revising of existing maps; and
One objective of the ASFPM is to develop guidelines for state and local agencies for the development of GIS programs to ensure that floodplain data is properly considered, incorporated and entered.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Association urges FEMA to establish a standing operating procedure for the development and transfer of digital floodplain map data for state and local GIS applications that meets the following goals:

That flood hazard maps be of uniform accuracy standards, with a base map of common scale and resolution, uniform stream numbers and reference point system, state plane coordinates and geodetic points,
That FEMA flood hazard maps be readily available in digital format through the office of the state coordinator in a format compatible with pc-based, vendor supplied software,
That FEMA flood hazard maps be kept current through the updating and compiling of floodplain information in a GIS database,
That FEMA provide training to state and local agencies in the use of the FEMA flood hazard mapping system.

ADOPTED BY THE ASFPM BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON AUGUST 23, 1990.

ASFPM RESOLUTION

MAP REVISIONS IN FILLED PORTIONS OF FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

WHEREAS,

The placement of fill is a common method used to protect against flood damages; and
A structure placed on fill often is considered better protected against flood damage than those protected using other elevation/floodproofing techniques; and
The physical composition of the soil, the manner in which it is placed, and the height of the material are important factors in determining the flood protection value of fill; and
In addition to the nature of the fill, the effectiveness of fill depends on the flooding characteristics of the floodprone areas; and
Base Flood Elevations (BFE) can increase due to hydrologic and hydraulic changes and can be particularly vulnerable to accelerated stormwater runoff and the loss of floodplain storage capacity; and
The placement of fill in a designated floodprone area can be the basis for officially removing the filled area from the designated floodprone area; and
The administrative removal of a filled property from a designated floodprone area causes the area to be removed from the jurisdiction of local floodplain management regulations; and
Without the application of such regulations, lowest floors can be placed below the BFE in areas so removed; and
Such lowest floors placed in fill are vulnerable to inundation and structural damage from a base flood; and
The criterion for map revision do not sufficiently address all the technical variables to assure adequate protection against damages caused by a base flood; and
The removal of a filled property from a designated floodprone area through map revision affords relief from the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement; and
Such uninsured property remains prone to damages from a base flood;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. support:

Map revision for property raised on fill after the effective date of a community's initial NFIP map should be issued only if the fill is contiguous with the boundary of the floodplain;
For structure elevated on fill not contiguous with the floodplain boundary, the map should not be revised or amended, but a waiver of flood insurance could be issued to satisfy the mandatory purchase requirement imposed by lenders;
To obtain a map revision or flood insurance waiver, the height of fill should be a minimum of one foot above the BFE and all lowest floor one foot above grade;
As a condition to issuing a map revision, the property owner or community should be required to provide documentation outlining legally binding and enforceable measures which would prevent the placement of lowest floors below the required one foot above finished grade;
The compaction, slope and erosion protection requirements of Section 65.5 of the NFIP regulations should apply to single lots and structures as well as to multi-lots and structures.

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASFPM ON OCTOBER 18, 1990.

ASFPM RESOLUTION

ONE FOOT FREEBOARD TO THE FIRST FLOOR IN FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

WHEREAS,

Base Flood Elevations (BFE) shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) reflect watershed conditions existing during the early phases of the Flood Insurance Study; and
The average FIRM is more than ten years old; and
The upland development during the past ten years has not been accounted for in the BFE; and
Flood fringe provisions allow for filling of flood prone areas which are outside of designated floodways, thereby allowing up to a one foot increase in BFE's and
This increase will ultimately result in the flooding of structures built in accordance with current national Flood Insurance Program standards; and
The Community Rating System proposes to give credit for communities that require a freeboard; and
A nationally recognized building code has reduced its elevation standard in "A" Zones in order to not exceed the Federal standard; and
The cost of additional elevation to protect against the rise in BFE and other uncertainties inherent in floodplain occupation is offset through lower insurance cost over the life of the mortgage;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED THAT the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. supports a federal standard which require all new or substantially improved structures in special flood hazard areas be constructed such that the lowest floor is one or more feet above the base flood elevation and the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member supporting a floor be at or above the BFE when established as a standard. When established as a standard, it should be implemented in conjunction with other major changes in order to minimize the frequency of ordinance modifications at the local level.

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASFPM ON JUNE 13, 1990.

COASTAL COMMITTEE, RESOLUTION #1

WHEREAS,

The National Academy of Science (NAS) has published a report entitled "Managing Coastal Erosion," which discusses the issues of erosion-zone management strategies, supporting data needs, and applicable methodologies to administer these strategies through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP);
This study indicates the need to designate erosion-hazard areas for all oceanfront and Great Lakes locations for the purpose of establishing construction setbacks;
Signature problems are associated with the determination of these erosion-hazard areas due to the dynamic nature of shorelines, the presence of shore protection structures, human-induced shoreline changes, extreme storm events, cyclic erosion/accretion patterns, and other variables;
There is a need to establish identifiable benchmarks from which the erosion-hazard areas can be measured;
The NAS report has recommended that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineate erosion zones at a significant cost; and
Passage of P.L. 100-247, the Upton-Jones amendment of the NFIP, commits federal funds to the removal of homes threatened by eroding shorelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED THAT the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) hereby adopts the following position on these recommendations related tot he development of an erosion-hazard management program:

A comprehensive erosion-hazard area management program should be incorporated into the NFIP. Erosion hazard areas should be delineated on maps to be used in management efforts in an attempt to guide development away from eroding shorelines and to prevent erosion related damage and claims.
Since erosion rates have been calculated for several coastal states using numerous techniques, FEMA should evaluate current methodologies and erosion-rate data to develop the erosion-hazard management program under the NFIP. This program should utilize existing data whenever possible.
The standard methodology (or methodologies, depending on the shoreline type) developed by FEMA should allow for the calculation of long-term rates of erosion, which could then be used to establish erosion hazard-zones, and guidelines must be flexible so as to address the variability in shoreline conditions throughout the country. Standards and guidelines governing the methodology should allow utilization of all reliable data.
Any proposed methodology for calculating, compiling and mapping of historical shoreline change data should be formatted for use with the various Geographic Information Systems. The methodology should be based on a common geographic referencing coordinate system that can be readily transferred to other systems.
Due to the dynamic nature of shorelines, the expense involved in frequent map updates, and the reliance placed on graphic depiction of hazard areas, the delineation of erosion-hazard areas should not include a landward boundary. Rather, mapping should define the along-shore extent of the erosion-hazard area and the erosion rate calculated for that area. The baseline or reference point from which the setback area is measured should be defined to allow for site specific evaluations of individual development proposals.
The development and application of a standard erosion-rate methodology should allow for the consideration of the effect of existing, functioning shore protection structures, including seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments.

Adopted by the Board of Directors of ASFPM on December 17, 1990.

COASTAL COMMITTEE, RESOLUTION #2

WHEREAS,

The National Academy of Science (NAS) has published a report entitled "Managing Coastal Erosion," which discusses the issues of erosion-zone management strategies, supporting data needs, and applicable methodologies to administer these strategies through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP);
This study concluded that jettied entrances and breakwater protecting harbors along sandy coasts often cause accretion updrift and erosion downdrift of these structures;
The construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of groins can also cause updrift accretion and downdrift erosion; and
This study also concluded that when rivers delivering sand sediment to the coast are dammed for flood control and other purposes, beach erosion can result over the long term.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) hereby adopts the following position on these recommendations related to the impacts of navigational and flood control projects on shoreline stability:

Sand dredged from entrances, harbors, inlets and tidal deltas, if of suitable quality (nontoxic and compatible grain size),should be used effectively as beach nourishment, rather than be deposited into deep water. Additional cost associated with the beachfill alternative should not be a cause for rejection of that alternative.
Environmental Impact Statements for such projects should provide a detailed discussion of potential impacts of navigation and shore protection structures on adjacent (updrift and downdrift) shorelines. Alternative sites and designs, including relocation of upland structures, must be evaluated with an emphasis on reducing or mitigating potential impacts, rather than responding to resultant erosion caused by the proposed project.
Studies should be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers to develop recommendations on proper procedures to mitigate negative effects of existing structures on adjacent shorelines. These studies should address the negative impacts of specific projects that have been shown to cause significant erosion problems. Such studies should evaluate when mitigation is appropriate, including relocation of structures, the construction of sand bypassing systems, increased emphasis on beach nourishment, and the structural modification of existing jetties, groins and breakwaters. Communities affected by a proposed project should be involved in the studies and should be informed of the study results, conclusions and recommendations.
Planners and regulatory agencies should carefully consider the effects of dams and flow regulation upon the supply of sand to the beaches. Detailed sediment budgets and analyses should be required as part of any Environmental Impact Statement for such projects. If analyses indicated potential negative impacts to sediment budgets, then alternative designs and/or mitigation options must be incorporated into project designs.

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASFPM ON DECEMBER 17, 1990.

RESOLUTION ON SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE AND IMPROVEMENT

WHEREAS, the National Research Council (NRC) has published a report entitled "Managing Coastal Erosion," which discusses the issues of erosion-zone management strategies, supporting data needs, and applicable methodologies to administer these strategies through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and

WHEREAS, this study concluded that jettied entrances and breakwaters protecting harbors along sandy coasts often cause accretion updrift and erosion downdrift of these structures, and

WHEREAS, the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of groins can also cause updrift accretion and downdrift erosion, and

WHEREAS, this study also concluded that when rivers delivering sand and sediment to the coast are dammed for flood control and other purposes, beach erosion can result over the long term.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the ASFPM hereby adopts the following position on these recommendations related to the impacts of navigational and flood control projects on shoreline stability:

Sand dredged from entrances, harbors, inlets and tidal deltas, if of suitable quality (nontoxic and compatible grain size), should be used effectively as beach nourishment, rather than be deposited into deep water. Additional costs associated with the beachfill alternative should not be a cause for rejection of that alternative.
Environmental Impact Statements for such projects should provide a detailed discussion of potential impacts of navigation and shore protection structures on adjacent (updrift and downdrift) shorelines. Alternative sites and designs, including relocation of upland structures, must be evaluated with an emphasis on reducing or mitigation potential impacts, rather than responding to resultant erosion caused by the proposed project.
Studies should be conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers to develop recommendations on proper procedures to mitigate negative effects of existing structures that on adjacent shorelines. These studies should address the negative impacts of specific projects that have been shown to cause significant erosion problems. Such mitigation could include the construction of sand, bypassing systems, increased emphasis on beach nourishment, the structural modification of existing jetties, groins and breakwaters, and the possibility of relocation of structures. Communities affected by proposed project should be involved in the studies and should be informed of the study results, conclusions and recommendations.
Planners and regulatory agencies should carefully consider the effects of dams and flow regulations upon the supply of sand to the beaches. Detailed sediment budgets and analyses should be required as part of any Environmental Impact Statement for such projects. If analyses indicate potential negative impacts to sediment budgets, then alternative design and/or mitigation options must be incorporated into project designs.

AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Coastal Committee Chair shall prepare a letter for signature by the Chair of the ASFPM relaying this position to FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Adopted by the Board of Directors in January, 1991.

ASFPM RESOLUTION PREPARED BY MAPPING & ENGINEERING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

WHEREAS:

Floodway maps serve as the basis for local floodplain management regulations; and
Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) must use the flood data provided by the Federal Insurance Administrator; and
Participating communities must enact local regulations that address the minimum NFIP requirements including floodway provisions; and
For communities that have been issued such maps, flood boundary floodway maps (FBFM) are the only sources showing the location of identified floodways; and
The continued availability of FBFMs to communities and other interested parties is critical to achieving compliance with floodway regulations; and
FBFMs are not routinely reprinted when existing supplies are deleted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Association of State Floodplain Managers support:

That the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) give the same priority to reprinting Flood Boundary Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Studies as it does to the reprinting of Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and
That FEMA improve its capability to process requests for flood maps and studies so that the information is distributed in a timely manner; and
That FEMA maintain the necessary funding to carry out this important task.

ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASFPM ON JUNE 12, 1991.

RESOLUTION: TO SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT STATE HAZARD MITIGATION TEAMS

WHEREAS,

Numerous natural hazards have caused physical and financial impacts in all States and Territories and will continue to do so; and
The opportunities to significant mitigate against these impacts are identifiable and that funding mechanisms are available to execute mitigation projects; and
Mitigation plans and recommendations can be effectively developed, prioritized, managed, and funded by establishing permanent State Hazard Mitigation Teams; and
The formation of State Hazard Mitigation Teams will involve and provide coordination of all agencies with appropriate expertise needed in the implementation of mitigation funding programs, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; and
The need exists to provide formal recognition to this organizational structure;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Association of State Floodplain Managers encourages the establishment of permanent State Hazard Mitigation Teams, to include all state agencies and other appropriate organizations to provide emergency management, engineering, natural resources, floodplain management, planning and zoning, community development building, insurance, public information and environmental regulations expertise, in order to increase the effectiveness of mitigation plans and efforts in all states; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The members of the Association of State Floodplain Managers recommend that the Federal Emergency Management Agency provide technical assistance, training and financial support to the States in the formation of such Teams.

ADOPTED BY THE ASFPM BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON MAY 20, 1992.

RESOLUTION ON SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE AND IMPROVEMENT

WHEREAS, the Association of State Floodplain Managers is committed to reducing flood losses in the nation through all means available; WHEREAS, enforcement of the substantial damage and substantial improvement requirement of the NFIP is a key component of flood loss reduction;

WHEREAS, past experience and actions have shown that such enforcement is technically complicated and requires additional staff and support in a post-disaster situation.

WHEREAS, enforcement is seen by the property owner and elected officials as an unfair, arbitrary and an expensive burden to disaster victims;

WHEREAS, recent FEMA guidance on market value and replacement costs is inconsistent with the NFIP regulations, resulting in a less restrictive regulatory standard and causing great confusion and resentment; and

WHEREAS, conditions leading to the recent guidance have changed, particularly the amount of financial assistance available to help bring buildings into compliance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THIS ASSOCIATION THAT:

The guidance on use of replacement costs after a catastrophic disaster should be replaced with new guidance that
1. Stipulates one single equitable criterion that applies to reconstruction after large or small disaster as well as to building improvements.
2. Is easy for most local officials and property owners to understand and administer, and
3. Is not open to political or legal challenges and manipulation of the cost of construction.
FEMA should develop information and technical support programs to help local officials understand and administer the rules. Such information and programs are needed both before and after a disaster.
Post-flood technical support should include timely provisions of available damage data, including flood insurance claims information.
FEMA should coordinate existing programs and develop new programs that can provide financial assistance to property owners affected by the substantial damage requirement.
The Association's Regulations Committee is ready and willing to assist FEMA in accomplishing these recommendations.

Adopted by the Board of Directors in November, 1994.

RESOLUTION ON WRDA

WHEREAS, technical and policy experts concur that national flood protection policies are out of sync with tools, technologies, and desired governmental roles.

WHEREAS, the Clinton Administration, as a result of the Great Midwest Flood of 1993, has expended significant energy in the development of comprehensive floodplain management strategies and proposed policies that have not yet been implemented.

WHEREAS, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) is a primary legislative tool that guides U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs and policy and is a significant tool to be used in the implementation of national floodplain management policy.

WHEREAS, WRDA proposals to date represent little or no response to the policy lessons learned from the 1993 flood and elsewhere.

WHEREAS, the proposed number of projects in WRDA (House Version) would potentially obligate Corps funding for the next two decades, thus reducing the potential for implementation of necessary changes in floodplain policy and diminishing the likelihood of WRDA updates in the near future.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED that the ASFPM hereby expresses its opposition to versions of WRDA that do not include significant reforms to floodplain management policies.

BE IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the ASFPM stands ready to support those versions of WRDA that provide meaningful inclusion of floodplain management policies as identified in the White House Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management, The Unified National Program on Floodplain Management and other initiatives consistent with the development of a modern floodplain management policy for the nation.

Adopted by the Board of Directors on June 12, 1996.

COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM CREDIT FOR STATE MANDATES

WHEREAS:The National Flood Insurance Program�s (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) is a federal tool to encourage effective floodplain and stormwater management and reduce losses due to flood damage; and

WHEREAS: Strong state involvement will reinforce and further the goals of the National Flood Insurance Program and the Community Rating System by reducing the losses to life and property; and

WHEREAS: The Association of State Floodplain Managers believes that federal flood policy should support and encourage state and local capabilities to solve flooding problems; and

WHEREAS: At least twenty-seven states have established mandated programs that exceed the minimum NFIP standards; and

WHEREAS: The Galloway Report recognizes that states must exert leadership both in state initiative and in directing the implementation of federal resources, and the report clearly identifies the need for strong regional and state leadership; and

WHEREAS: States are the most logical unit of government to provide consistent geographic leadership and coordination in the packaging of floodplain management programs; and

WHEREAS: As evidenced by the 1993 Midwest floods in states with programs and standards that exceed the national minimums, flood damages were less, including reduced damages to infrastructure; and

WHEREAS: State mandated floodplain and stormwater management programs and activities that exceed the minimum NFIP standards lead to more uniform application through state wide training and education efforts; and

WHEREAS: State mandates benefit the entire state�s policy base rather than those communities participating in the Community Rating System; and

WHEREAS: State mandates should result in greater administrative savings with reduced federal oversight at the community level;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Association of State Floodplain Managers encourages the Community Rating System to provide appropriate increased credit to communities in those states whose mandated programs exceed the minimum NFIP standards for the purpose of further reducing future flood damages.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Upon Board adoption, this resolution be transmitted to the Community Rating Task Force.

Adopted by the ASFPM Board of Directors, April 26, 1997.

INCREASED STREAM GAGING FOR FLOOD WARNING RESOLUTION

WHEREAS:The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Weather Service (NWS), is responsible for warning the public of potential flooding in the United States; and

WHEREAS:Effective flood warning to more than 4,000 locations in the Nation by the NWS requires-real time river stage and stream flow data for updating and validating hydrologic forecast models; and

WHEREAS:The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is responsible for the collection and analysis of water data nationwide and operates more than 4,000 river gages required by the NWS to produce river flood forecasts; and

WHEREAS:More than 400 streamflow gages used in the NWS forecast network have been discontinued by the USGS because of level or decreased funding of USGS and its many State and local cooperators; and

WHEREAS:Losses of river gages available to the NWS forecasting network result in less accurate flood forecasts; and

WHEREAS:Fewer and less accurate flood forecasts and warnings will lead to increased flood losses to many flood prone communities; and

WHEREAS:The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) believes the availability of accurate flood forecasts through real-time data provided by river stage and stream flow gages are an essential element of community floodplain management programs;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:The Association of State Floodplain Managers supports NOAA, National Weather Service and the U.S. Geological Survey in their efforts to stop the deterioration of the nation�s streamflow gaging network and to restore the river gages that are critical to river flood forecasts. ASFPM supports increased Congressional appropriations for the USGS to restore and maintain the national streamflow gaging network and for NWS to support river stage and discharge stations and to enhance its capability for providing accurate flood forecasts for flood prone communities.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT:Upon Board adoption, this resolution be transmitted to the appropriate agencies and other decision makers in Washington, D.C.

Adopted by the ASFPM Board of Directors, April 30, 1997.

POST FLOOD MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES RESOLUTION

Whereas, after a flood there is a well-recognized window of opportunity to initiate activities to mitigate against future losses from the next disaster that will hit a community and this is a unique time because of the following factors:

A disaster can bring experts from various federal, state, and regional agencies and fields together to focus their attention on the community and its flood problems.
The residents and elected officials will be more willing to spend time on the community�s flood problems and try some new solutions.
Incorporating some mitigation measures is easier and more effective during repairs and reconstruction.
It may be relatively easy to acquire and clear heavily damaged structures and redevelop the vacated hazard-prone areas as a community asset.
If a federal disaster declaration is made, several programs will make more money available to implement mitigation measures.

Whereas, it can be difficult to take advantage of this window of opportunity for the following reasons:

People want to get back to normal as quickly as possible. "Normal" to most people means just the way they were before the disaster, i.e., exposed to a repeat of the problem.
Property owners are not familiar with the possible mitigation opportunities or that they can and should take steps to protect themselves from the next disaster.
Once people are back to "normal," they resist changes to their properties that mitigation activities such as acquisition and retrofitting require.
The cost of some mitigation measures is much higher after buildings are repaired; plus this is an added concern and the administrative nightmare of the duplication of benefits.
Often local officials may not be familiar with the possible mitigation opportunities or even with the basic regulations that govern reconstruction of flood damaged buildings; or their ordinance may not meet the current NFIP requirements related to substantial damage or improvement.
In a misguided effort to help those people affected by a disaster, elected officials at all levels of government often encourage only those activities resulting in reconstruction to pre-flood conditions, leaving citizens at risk to future flooding.

Whereas, while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the states are now better prepared and better funded to implement mitigation programs before and after a disaster, there are still certain post-disaster practices that run counter to needed post-flood mitigation activities, including:

There are often too few FEMA and state floodplain and emergency management staff available to implement an effective post-disaster mitigation program. Emergency management staff often have extra duties during a disaster and floodplain management offices are already understaffed. A trained reserve, mutual aid arrangement and other augmentation measures (emergency management compact) are needed.
Local officials responsible for regulating reconstruction are not fully trained in their responsibilities and are not provided with all of the available information that would help them fulfill their responsibilities. Specifically, data on building damages collected by insurance adjusters and disaster staff are not provided to the local officials in a timely manner.
Some disaster assistance programs encourage the return to "normal" without regard to the need to follow reconstruction requirements or consider mitigation alternatives. The Limited Home Repair and Individual and Family Grant Programs and flood insurance claims systems are all administered with the aim of providing reconstruction funds as quickly as possible. The money is often provided with little or no regard for the substantial damage regulations or information about local permit requirements and mitigation measures that should be considered.
There is a tendency to promote acquisition and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) as the major (if not the only) mitigation effort. While acquisition is a permanent approach to flood hazard mitigation, this effort can result in:
1. Diminishing FEMA and state mitigation staff resources from the vital job of requiring and assisting local reconstruction regulations;
2. Focusing only on the worst hit areas, omitting attention from mitigation measures that could help the rest of the flooded areas. Often the amount of funds can only help a small part of the worst hit areas, resulting in no mitigation activities to help a number of the flood properties; and
3. Other mitigation options, many of which may be more appropriate, may not be considered

Whereas, the best post-disaster mitigation measures are those that are (a) appropriate for the situation, (b) complementary and mutually supportive rather than single solution approaches, (c) supported by the community and residents, and (d) affordable; to identify such measures and gain the needed support and funding for them requires a locally-led planning process. While some FEMA programs support such planning (e.g., the Community Rating System and Flood Mitigation Assistance), post-disaster activities seldom do. For example:

Some disaster assistance programs provide some funds so quickly, there is no time or encouragement to plan for the proper reuse of damaged areas or consideration of mitigation alternatives.
The focus on acquisition and the current HMGP funding requirements do not encourage comprehensive mitigation planning, as envisioned by FEMA�s "Project Impact" program. The federal guidance has been seen as "buy now, pl