types of non-reg products some communities may need, but that FEMA has so far not used.” A.2. Account for geologic/geomorphic hazards on Putting all of the hazards on one traditional map isn’t “FIRM” flood maps, including fluvial erosion /channel practical. We should be presenting data, not maps. This migration zones. Channel migration zones have key comment can be included on most of these first relevance to endangered and threatened species recommendations. habitat requirements, e.g. salmonids, as well as building safety. A.3. Include all hazards (erosion, , storm surge) on Comment: should this specify a date rather than a number flood maps,. of years? A yearly update becomes necessary on a long These should be based on current medium to high GHC scenarios. Current estimate of project average U.S. residential structure life is 150 years. Also see L.3 Modeling becomes very uncertain out to such a time period. It can also become confusing with the 100-year standard. Subsidence and seal level rise are not flood hazards and should not be however, subsidence and sea level ‘mapped’ rise should be taken into consideration when determining There is some concern with the uncertainty with this standard and that the use of this and the following language related to residential structures is unrelated to what may happen in the natural and build environments 150 years from now. hard to recommend a 150 year standard when we had a whole seminar on the 100 year standard, and determined keeping it was the best course of action. Honeycutt: Storm surge has been considered in FEMA’s coastal flood maps for >35 years. The Association should cease writing references like this (incl. in annual Goals & Objectives) that suggest it’s somehow missing from FEMA’s data. Several of us have tried to catch/correct this over the years, but it continues to pop up. Hillier: with Honecutt’s comment above. However, concerned with the absence of storm surge in this discussion. Edit below addresses both needs. Honeycutt: See comment on L.3 150 years is an arbitrary – number, and may be inappropriate more often than not. Better to call for the use of site-specific hazard data that correspond to more realistic estimates of the useful lifetime of a resource or investment.
types of non-reg products some communities may need, but that FEMA has so far not used.” A.2. Account for geologic/geomorphic hazards on flood maps, including fluvial erosion /channel migration zones. Channel migration zones have key relevance to endangered and threatened species habitat requirements, e.g. salmonids, as well as building safety. Putting all of the hazards on one traditional “FIRM” map isn’t practical. We should be presenting data, not maps. This comment can be included on most of these first recommendations. A.3. Include all hazards (erosion, , storm surge) on flood maps,. These should be based on current medium to high GHC scenarios. Current estimate of average U.S. residential structure life is 150 years. Also see L.3 Comment: should this specify a date rather than a number of years? A yearly update becomes necessary on a long project Modeling becomes very uncertain out to such a time period. It can also become confusing with the 100-year standard. Subsidence and seal level rise are not flood hazards and should not be ‘mapped’ however, subsidence and sea level rise should be taken into consideration when determining There is some concern with the uncertainty with this standard and that the use of this and the following language related to residential structures is unrelated to what may happen in the natural and build environments 150 years from now. hard to recommend a 150 year standard when we had a whole seminar on the 100 year standard, and determined keeping it was the best course of action. Honeycutt: Storm surge has been considered in FEMA’s coastal flood maps for >35 years. The Association should cease writing references like this (incl. in annual Goals & Objectives) that suggest it’s somehow missing from FEMA’s data. Several of us have tried to catch/correct this over the years, but it continues to pop up. Hillier: with Honecutt’s comment above. However, concerned with the absence of storm surge in this discussion. Edit below addresses both needs. Honeycutt: See comment on L.3 – 150 years is an arbitrary number, and may be inappropriate more often than not. Better to call for the use of site-specific hazard data that correspond to more realistic estimates of the useful lifetime of a resource or investment.
NFPPR_AllCommitteesCombined_10_9_2014-LL.docx