Laserfiche WebLink
<br />additional flood damage on properties in the floodplain, increases downstream flood peaks, and <br />promotes the filling of riparian zones that would be valuable natural resources if left undisturbed. <br /> <br />. Fill should be treated like any other engineered foundation, so Letters of Map Revision should <br />not be issued based solely on filL When there is a need to waive flood insurance, the Federal <br />Emergency Management Agency should issue a letter of flood insurance waiver based on the <br />structure's being above the 1% chance flood elevation, but not remove the entire property from <br />the mapped floodplain. <br /> <br />. Developers sometime seek to go beyond waiving flood insurance and remove the "floodplain" <br />designation from a property, and then develop that property with basements or in other ways that <br />would not be possible on floodplain lands. Removing the designation of "floodplain" from a <br />property on an accurate floodplain map should be contingent on (I) waiving future flood disaster <br />assistance for I % chance or smaller floods, and (2) requiring waivers to be recorded on the <br />property deed. <br /> <br />Integrating Stormwater Management and Flood Loss Reduction <br /> <br />Stormwater management programs have significantly reduced localized flood damage, especially in <br />areas subject to future development, and have the potential to make an even greater positive impact <br />in the future, Unfortunately, current federal and state programs for stormwater management and for <br />flood loss reduction are delivered through two completely distinct mechanisms. At the local level <br />where integrated programs should be implemented, staffs are being split between the two areas or are <br />having to juggle the different programs, This is best illustrated by the direction of the National <br />Pollution Discharge Elimination System program, and the Environmental Protection Agency's holistic <br />watershed management process, which in spite of its name focuses on water quality to the exclusion <br />of most other considerations, This is not productive policy. For localities to be able to integrate <br />stormwater management and floodplain management effectively, state and federal programs need to <br />be coordinated, For example, the State of Washington is using its Environmental Protection Agency <br />authority to manage runoff from the I % chance flood, which will have a major positive effect on <br />future flooding, <br /> <br />. There should be more emphasis at the federal and state level on integrating the flood loss <br />reduction and water quality components of stormwater management. <br /> <br />. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency should <br />co-sponsor a forum to begin looking at integrating their respective programs and thereby <br />facilitating a more holistic approach at the state and local levels. <br /> <br />. All demonstration projects funded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard <br />Mitigation Grant Program and through the Environmental Protection Agency's Section 319 <br />Nonpoint Program should take into consideration both flooding and water quality, <br /> <br />STRUCTURAL MEASURES <br /> <br />Structural mitigation projects are generally large-scale public works or engineering efforts to manage <br />and control water to avoid damage from high discharges, Although they reduce damage from frequent <br />nuisance flooding, these control structures in many cases have encouraged development in <br /> <br />Association of State Floodplain Managers <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000 <br />