FFRMS… It’s a mouthful of consonants but easier to say (or type) than “Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.” Having a broad-based FFRMS means having a consistent approach to setting minimum standards for new and substantially improved construction to give them a fighting chance against Mother Nature during flood events. As of September 9, 2024, a new FFRMS Rule from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in effect.
Minimum standards meant to reduce risk of flooding and flood-related damage are nothing new. Regulations to meet the goals of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 required specific protective measures for new construction and substantially improved structures (“substantial” being more than 50% of pre-improved value) in what was then referred to as the 100-year floodplain, later renamed the 1% annual-chance floodplain. Risk reduction has also guided federal projects since 1977 when President Jimmy Carter signed Executive Order (EO) 11988. This directed all federal agencies to minimize adverse results from building in and altering floodplains and to avoid supporting floodplain development whenever a practical alternative existed. “Practical,” however, is often subjective.
The next big change came with EO 13690, which had a rocky start: issued by President Obama in 2015, rescinded by President Trump in 2017, and reinstated by President Biden in 2021. EO 13690 expanded the goals of EO 11988, setting a FFRMS for any development by or funded by any federal agency. FEMA published the final version of its new Rule in the Federal Register on July 11, 2024, giving advance notice of implementing EO 13690’s FFRMS for any FEMA-funded project.
Other agencies have also implemented EO 13690’s approaches to minimizing flood risks into their regulations. A quick search reveals:
- Army Corps of Engineers: 44 CFR Part 9 and 33 CFR §386.6. Also see the Corps’ website for its explanation of how it implements climate-informed science (Approach 1 below)..
- Environmental Protection Agency: 40 CFR §35.10026
- Housing and Urban Development: 24 CFR §55.7
What does the Rule say? It doesn’t differ much from the proposed version published in October 2023. It generally follows recommendations in various reports by the FEMA’s Technical Mapping Advisory Council to redefine approaches to reducing development vulnerability to flooding. Most of the Rule’s changes since first proposed are additional resources. The final Rule includes a list of options to achieve the goals of the FFRMS and introduces new acronyms (in bold) that we will need to recognize moving forward.
- “Approach 1: Climate-Informed Science Approach (CISA): Utilizing the best available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science;
- “Approach 2: Freeboard Value Approach (FVA): The elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain that result from using the freeboard value, reached by adding 2 feet to the base flood elevation (BFE) for non-critical actions (+2’ FVA) and from adding 3 feet to the BFE for critical actions (+3’ FVA).
- “Approach 3: 0.2-percent-annual-chance Flood Approach (0.2PFA): 0.2 percent annual chance flood (also known as the 500-year flood); or
- “Approach 4: the elevation and flood hazard area that result from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.”
To standardize incorporation of the Rule into its activities, FEMA has published updated Policy 206-24-005, now online. Because it anticipates future policy updates, this Policy does not mention Approach 4 in Policy Section C, “Determination of the FFRMS Floodplain”. Policy 206-24-005 identifies some exemptions from the rules, primarily related to emergencies and matters relating to national security. Federal agencies must follow a long-standing 8-step decision-making process before taking any action to carry out their functions. The updated Policy supplements that process to further minimize adverse impacts resulting from occupying and modifying floodplains.
Those eight decision evaluation steps aren’t listed in the Policy. Instead, they appear in 44 CFR §9.6(b) and apply to all regulated floodplains and wetlands. The decision process recognizes that very little that humans do has zero impact on floodplains and wetlands; the best we can do is minimize the harm we do cause. For this reason, agencies must identify and evaluate practical alternatives to floodplain disturbance. If a practical alternative location for a project exists outside of regulated floodplains, that is where a project must (note “must,” not “may”) be located. All along the way, from proposal through final decision, the public must be kept informed and allowed to comment. While not providing specifics on how notice and data distribution should be achieved (in person or virtual meetings, online data distribution, newspaper publications, etc.), 44 CFR §9.8 does note general contents and timing of outreach.
In applying FEMA’s Rule and updated Policy, which of the three Approaches is most appropriate? The decision comes down to distinctions between critical actions and non-critical actions. Critical actions are those in which even a slight chance of flooding is too risky for operations of certain facilities. Such risk-averse structures follow the same definition as 44 CFR §9.4 and the categories in ASCE Standard 24 (“Flood Resistant Design and Construction”, most recent version ASCE 24-14). Critical facilities include hospitals, emergency operation centers, utility and generating plants, and sites that store, produce, or use toxic, explosive, or volatile materials.