FEMA

Selecting Appropriate 

Mitigation Measures for 

Floodprone Structures

FEMA 551 / March 2007
About the Cover

The house pictured on the cover, located in Michigan, was elevated approximately five feet. The 

basement was abandoned, filled, and the house placed upon a new extended wall foundation with 

a crawlspace. Twelve hydrostatic vent openings were installed to allow any floodwater to enter the 

crawlspace. The deck and wrap-around porch was added at the owner’s expense to improve the 

overall aesthetics of the site. The project was completed utilizing Flood Mitigation Assistance Funds 

for 75 percent of the project’s cost. The community paid 12.5 percent of the cost and the home 

owner the remaining 12.5 percent. Total cost of the elevation project was $49,140, completed in 

2001.
Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 

Chapter 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1-1 
 

1.1 Intended Users and Purpose of This Manual ...................................................... 1-1 
 

1.2 Organization of This Manual.............................................................................. 1-2 
 

1.3 Available Resources............................................................................................ 1-3 
 

Chapter 2 The National Tool (NT).................................................................................... 2-1 
 

2.1 Starting Data ....................................................................................................... 2-1 
 

2.2 NT Contents ....................................................................................................... 2-2 
 

2.2.1 Limited Data View............................................................................... 2-2 
 

2.2.2 Detailed Data View.............................................................................. 2-5 
 

2.3 Additional Sources of Information ..................................................................... 2-8 
 

2.3.1 Flood Insurance Studies....................................................................... 2-9 
 

2.3.2 FEMA Regional Offices ...................................................................... 2-10 
 

2.3.3 Other Federal Agencies........................................................................ 2-10 
 

2.3.4 State, Regional, and Local Agencies ................................................... 2-11 
 

Chapter 3 Selecting Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 3-1 
 

3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 3-1 
 

3.2 Mitigation Measures Overview........................................................................... 3-2 
 

3.2.1 Drainage Improvements....................................................................... 3-2 
 

3.2.2 Barriers................................................................................................. 3-2 
 

3.2.3 Wet Floodproofing............................................................................... 3-2 
 

3.2.4 Dry Floodproofing ............................................................................... 3-2 
 

3.2.5 Elevation .............................................................................................. 3-2 
 

3.2.6 Relocation ............................................................................................ 3-3 
 

3.2.7 Acquisition........................................................................................... 3-3 
 

3.3 Initial Screening Using the NT ........................................................................... 3-3 
 

3.4 Hazard and Structure Characteristics.................................................................. 3-6 
 

3.4.1 Question #1. What is the structure type? ............................................. 3-6 
 

3.4.2 Question #2. What is the condition of the structure?........................... 3-7 
 

3.4.3 Question #3. What is the foundation type?.......................................... 3-8 
 

3.4.4 Question #4. What is the number of stories? ....................................... 3-10 
 

3.4.5 Question #5. What is the building footprint?....................................... 3-11 
 

3.4.6 Question #6. What is the flood protection depth?................................ 3-12 
 

3.4.7 Question #7. Does flash flooding occur at the project site? ................ 3-15 
 

3.4.8 Question #8. What is the flood velocity?............................................. 3-16 
 

3.4.9 Question #9. Is the structure located in the floodway?........................ 3-19 
 

3.5 Evaluating the Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 3-21 
 

Chapter 4 Drainage Improvements................................................................................... 4-1 
 

4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 4-1 
 

4.2 Technical Considerations.................................................................................... 4-2 
 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures i 
Table of Contents 

4.2.1 Depth of Flood ..................................................................................... 4-2 
 

4.2.2 Adverse Impact Downstream............................................................... 4-2
 

4.3 Relative Costs ..................................................................................................... 4-2 
 

4.3.1 Estimated Cost ..................................................................................... 4-2 
 

4.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness................................................... 4-2
 

4.4 Additional Considerations .................................................................................. 4-3 
 

4.4.1 Annual Maintenance ............................................................................ 4-3
 

4.5 Available Resources............................................................................................ 4-3 
 

Chapter 5 Barriers.............................................................................................................. 5-1 
 

5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 5-1 
 

5.1.1 Levees .................................................................................................. 5-2 
 

5.1.2 Berms ................................................................................................... 5-2 
 

5.1.3 Floodwalls............................................................................................ 5-2 
 

5.1.4 Temporary Barriers.............................................................................. 5-3
 

5.2 Technical Considerations.................................................................................... 5-4 
 

5.2.1 Height of Barrier.................................................................................. 5-4 
 

5.2.2 Structure with Basement Foundation................................................... 5-5 
 

5.2.3 Soil Conditions..................................................................................... 5-5 
 

5.2.4 Duration of Flooding............................................................................ 5-5
 

5.3 Relative Costs ..................................................................................................... 5-5 
 

5.3.1 Estimated Cost ..................................................................................... 5-5 
 

5.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness................................................... 5-6
 

5.4 Additional Considerations .................................................................................. 5-7 
 

5.4.1 Human Intervention ............................................................................. 5-7 
 

5.4.2 Annual Maintenance ............................................................................ 5-7 
 

5.4.3 Housing of Occupants.......................................................................... 5-7 
 

5.4.4 Access to Structure .............................................................................. 5-7 
 

5.4.5 Interior Drainage.................................................................................. 5-8
 

5.5 Available Resources............................................................................................ 5-9 
 

Chapter 6 Wet Floodproofing............................................................................................ 6-1 
 

6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 6-1 
 

6.2 Technical Considerations.................................................................................... 6-2 
 

6.2.1 Construction Materials......................................................................... 6-2 
 

6.2.2 Basement Areas (as defined by NFIP regulations) .............................. 6-2 
 

6.2.3 Duration of Flooding............................................................................ 6-4 
 

6.2.4 Location of Utilities ............................................................................. 6-4 
 

6.2.5 Non-Residential Structures, Garages, etc. ........................................... 6-5
 

6.3 Relative Costs ..................................................................................................... 6-6 
 

6.3.1 Estimated Cost ..................................................................................... 6-6 
 

6.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness................................................... 6-7
 

6.4 Additional Considerations .................................................................................. 6-7 
 

6.4.1 Human Intervention ............................................................................. 6-7 
 

6.4.2 Annual Maintenance ............................................................................ 6-7 
 

6.4.3 Substantial Improvement or Substantial Damage Requirements......... 6-7 
 

ii Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Table of Contents 

6.4.4 Post-Flood Concerns............................................................................ 6-9
 

6.5 Available Resources............................................................................................ 6-9 
 

Chapter 7 Dry Floodproofing ............................................................................................ 7-1 
 

7.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 7-1 
 

7.1.1 Waterproof Membranes ....................................................................... 7-2 
 

7.1.2 Closures................................................................................................ 7-2 
 

7.1.3 Sewer Backup Protection..................................................................... 7-4
 

7.2 Technical Considerations.................................................................................... 7-4 
 

7.2.1 Flood Depth ......................................................................................... 7-4 
 

7.2.2 Structures with Basements................................................................... 7-5 
 

7.2.3 Flood Duration..................................................................................... 7-5 
 

7.2.4 Flow Velocity....................................................................................... 7-5 
 

7.2.5 Warning Time ...................................................................................... 7-5 
 

7.2.6 Floodborne Debris ............................................................................... 7-6
 

7.3 Relative Costs ..................................................................................................... 7-6 
 

7.3.1 Estimated Cost ..................................................................................... 7-6 
 

7.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness................................................... 7-7
 

7.4 Additional Considerations .................................................................................. 7-7 
 

7.4.1 Human Intervention ............................................................................. 7-8 
 

7.4.2 Annual Maintenance ............................................................................ 7-8
 

7.5 Available Resources............................................................................................ 7-8 
 

Chapter 8 Elevation ............................................................................................................ 8-1 
 

8.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 8-1 
 

8.2 Technical Considerations.................................................................................... 8-2 
 

8.2.1 Structure Type...................................................................................... 8-2 
 

8.2.2 Foundation Type .................................................................................. 8-2 
 

8.2.2.1 Crawlspaces .......................................................................... 8-3 
 

8.2.2.2 Piers, Posts, Piles, Columns, and Shear Walls...................... 8-3 
 

8.2.2.3 Basements ............................................................................. 8-3 
 

8.2.2.4 Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................... 8-3
 

8.2.3 Structure Size ....................................................................................... 8-3 
 

8.2.4 Utility Modifications............................................................................ 8-3 
 

8.2.5 Other Hazards ...................................................................................... 8-4 
 

8.2.6 Vents .................................................................................................... 8-4
 

8.3 Relative Costs ..................................................................................................... 8-5 
 

8.3.1 Estimated Cost ..................................................................................... 8-5 
 

8.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness................................................... 8-6
 

8.4 Additional Considerations .................................................................................. 8-7 
 

8.4.1 Substantial Damage/Improvement....................................................... 8-7 
 

8.4.2 Access to the Structure by the Lifting Crew........................................ 8-7 
 

8.4.3 Access to the Structure Following Elevation....................................... 8-8 
 

8.4.4 Codes and Ordinances.......................................................................... 8-9 
 

8.4.5 Historic Preservation............................................................................ 8-10 
 

8.4.6 Housing of Occupants.......................................................................... 8-10 
 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures iii 
Table of Contents 

8.4.7 Aesthetics............................................................................................. 8-10
 

8.5 Available Resources............................................................................................ 8-12 
 

Chapter 9 Relocation .......................................................................................................... 9-1 
 

9.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 9-1 
 

9.2 Technical Considerations.................................................................................... 9-2 
 

9.2.1 Structure Type...................................................................................... 9-2 
 

9.2.2 Structure Condition.............................................................................. 9-2 
 

9.2.3 Structure Size ....................................................................................... 9-3
 

9.3 Relative Costs ..................................................................................................... 9-3 
 

9.3.1 Estimated Cost ..................................................................................... 9-3 
 

9.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness................................................... 9-4
 

9.4 Additional Considerations .................................................................................. 9-4 
 

9.4.1 Annual Maintenance ............................................................................ 9-4 
 

9.4.2 Moving a Structure Between the Old and New Sites .......................... 9-4 
 

9.4.3 Access to Site....................................................................................... 9-4 
 

9.4.4 Housing of Occupants.......................................................................... 9-5
 

9.5 Available Resources............................................................................................ 9-6 
 

Chapter 10 Acquisition....................................................................................................... 10-1 
 

10.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 10-1 
 

10.2 Technical Considerations.................................................................................. 10-2 
 

10.3 Relative Costs ................................................................................................... 10-2 
 

10.3.1 Estimated Cost ................................................................................... 10-3 
 

10.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness................................................. 10-3
 

10.4 Additional Considerations ................................................................................ 10-3 
 

10.4.1 Historic Preservation.......................................................................... 10-3 
 

10.4.2 Hazardous Materials .......................................................................... 10-5
 

10.5 Available Resources.......................................................................................... 10-6 
 

Chapter 11 Working with Property Owners.................................................................... 11-1 
 

11.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 11-1 
 

11.2 Presenting Appropriate Mitigation Measures ................................................... 11-1 
 

11.3 Addressing Property Owner Concerns.............................................................. 11-3 
 

11.3.1 Evaluation Process............................................................................. 11-3 
 

11.3.2 Property Owners’ Preference............................................................. 11-3 
 

11.3.3 FEMA Buyout Study Findings .......................................................... 11-4
 

11.4 Next Steps ......................................................................................................... 11-5 
 

11.5 Available Resources.......................................................................................... 11-5 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A – Sample Information Packet ........................................................................... A-1 
 

Appendix B – Blank Worksheets.......................................................................................... B-1 
 

Appendix C – Cost Estimating ............................................................................................ C-1 
 

Appendix D – Determining Cost-Effectiveness ................................................................... D-1 
 

Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs ....................................................... E-1 
 

iv Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Table of Contents 

Appendix F – FEMA Regional Offices ................................................................................ F-1 
 

Appendix G – State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.............................................. G-1 
 

Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers... H-1 
 

Appendix I – Glossary .......................................................................................................... I-1 
 

Appendix J – Acronyms........................................................................................................ J-1 
 

Appendix K – References ..................................................................................................... K-1
 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures v 
Table of Contents 

This page left intentionally blank. 

vi Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 1 − Introduction 

CHAPTER 1 − INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Intended Users and Purpose of This Manual 

The intended users of this manual are State and local officials with the responsibility to reduce or 

eliminate risk of property damage and human suffering due to flooding. These officials carry out 

this responsibility by: 

	 Assessing risks; 

	 Developing priorities and strategies to address these risks through what are commonly 

referred to as “mitigation plans” or area analyses; and 

	 Working with other community officials and property owners to implement projects that 

reduce or eliminate the identified risks, also referred to as “mitigation projects.” 

The purpose of this manual is to assist State and local officials with the last of the three tasks 

listed above. 

CAUTION 

This guidance document is provided for assisting in the development of 

mitigation projects for floodprone structures only. It is not implied that 

following this guidance will result in the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) funding the mitigation project in part or in 

whole. Meeting the requirements of the guidance and/or regulations 

under each of FEMA’s respective mitigation programs is the only way 

to ensure a mitigation project is eligible for funding under FEMA’s grant 

programs. 

This manual provides guidance on how to interpret data collected with the National Flood 

Mitigation Data Collection Tool (NFMDCT) (also referred to as the “National Tool” or “NT” in 

this manual) and other sources to develop detailed proposals for flood mitigation projects. 

This manual assumes that the community has already completed the mitigation planning process, 

and that specific structures and/or areas considered high priority for mitigation (due to recurrent, 

significant flooding) have been identified and local officials are looking to identify specific 

mitigation measures to meet these priorities. In addition, this manual identifies technical issues 

associated with many mitigation techniques and references other documents that provide more 

detailed structure analyses, assessments, and technical guidance. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 1-1 
Chapter 1 − Introduction 

What is the NT? 

As part of ongoing efforts by FEMA to reduce the impact of flooding on people and 

property, the NT was developed for use by Federal, State, and local mitigation officials 

to gather information about floodprone properties, including repetitive loss (RL) 

properties. One of the primary intended uses for the data is determining appropriate 

mitigation measures for these properties that are both feasible and cost-effective. 

The NT software (FEMA 497 CD) may be obtained free of charge by contacting the 

FEMA Distribution Center at 1-800-480-2520. The National Flood Mitigation Data 

Collection Tool User’s Manual (FEMA 497) may be downloaded from FEMA’s website 

at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/data_tool.shtm. 

1.2 Organization of This Manual 

To develop detailed proposals for mitigation projects, there are three “steps” recommended in the 

decision-making process: 

1.	 Initial screening using NT: Analyzing data gathered using NT to narrow 
 

the available options for mitigation measures (see Section 3.3 for a 
 

description of this step); 
 

2.	 Evaluating the mitigation measures: Using information from NT and 
 

other sources to evaluate the options remaining after the initial screening 
 

(see Section 3.5 for a description of this step); and 
 

3.	 Working with property owners: Meeting and working with owners of 
 

floodprone properties to identify the option preferred by all interested 
 

parties and then working to implement it as a fundable mitigation project 
 

(see Chapter 11 for a description of this step). 
 

This manual is designed to support such efforts by providing technical guidance on the most 

appropriate protection measures on an individual basis. It follows a standard process of data 

collection, evaluation, and decision-making: 

	 A review of the community’s flood problems identifies which areas or buildings should 

be addressed. This review is often done during preparation of a hazard mitigation plan or 

area analysis (see Section 1.3 for more information). 

	 The buildings are visited and data are collected and recorded, preferably using the 

NFMDCT (also referred to as the “National Tool” or “NT” in this manual). This is 

described in Chapter 2. 

	 An analysis of the data identifies the most appropriate mitigation measures, as shown in 

Chapter 3. 

	 The most appropriate measures are reviewed in more detail in Chapters 4 through 10. 

1-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 1 − Introduction 

	 The results are reviewed with property owners, who select which measures to pursue 

(Chapter 11). 

	 Funds are sought and projects are implemented. 

Appendix A contains a sample information packet. Blank worksheets are contained in Appendix 

B. Appendix C presents information on cost estimating. Determining cost-effectiveness is 

discussed in Appendix D. Appendix E describes hazard mitigation assistance programs. The 

FEMA Regional Offices are presented in Appendix F. Appendix G is a listing of State and Tribal 

Historic Preservation Offices. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinating 

Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers are listed in Appendix H. Appendices I and J 

contain the glossary and list of acronyms, respectively. Appendix K contains the references for 

the document. 

1.3 Available Resources 

FEMA 386-1, Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning. 

FEMA 386-2, Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses. 

FEMA 386-3, Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing 

Strategies. 

FEMA 386-4, Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan. 

FEMA 511, Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. 

FEMA Community Rating System (CRS). Example Plans. 

Schwab, et al. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment. American Planning 

Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service Report Number 483/484. 

USACE, Local Floodproofing Programs. 

44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 201, Mitigation Planning. See 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/interim_final_rules.shtm 

FEMA Mitigation Planning “How-To” Guides. See 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/planning_resources.shtm#1 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 1-3 
Chapter 1 − Introduction 

This page left intentionally blank. 

1-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

CHAPTER 2 – THE NATIONAL TOOL (NT) 
 

FEMA’s National Tool (NT) software was developed to help catalog floodprone structures and to 

determine potentially appropriate mitigation measures. It is explained in detail in the National 

Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide (FEMA 497). This chapter provides an overview of 

how the National Tool works. 

The ultimate goal of the NT is to provide a standardized, systematic approach to collecting and 

interpreting property data and mitigation project development. While the focus of the NT is on 

data collection for repetitive loss (RL) properties, it can also be used to gather information related 

to flood risk, building construction, and building value for any structure. 

2.1 Starting Data 

The NT is designed to encourage a comprehensive sweep for information pertinent to each 

structure. Data fields within the NT require information from a variety of sources, including the 

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policy information; community building, tax, and 

historical flood records; and field reconnaissance. However, the NT can be used with cursory or 

limited data or with lots of detailed data, if available. 

It is best to start using the NT already populated with readily available flood insurance data on 

each property. BureauNet is a database maintained by the NFIP’s Bureau and Statistical Agent and 

access is available through FEMA. The community can ask the FEMA Regional Office (see 

Appendix F) or the NFIP State Coordinating Agency (see Appendix H) to provide “drill down” 

summaries of flood insurance and claims information. The drill downs contain such information 

as: 

 Dates of claims 

 Value of claims paid 

 Property’s insured status 

 Property address 

 Current policy holder’s name 

 Last claimant’s name 

 Mitigated status 

 Mitigation actions and funding sources (where applicable) 

This information can be used to identify general areas of repetitive flooding, locate clusters of 

floodprone structures, and determine which structures have incurred the most frequent or severe 

losses. These data can be used to prioritize further investigations and field data collection efforts. 

The data will be provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format that can then be uploaded into 

the NT through the Utilities function. For additional information about how to import data into the 

NT, see the National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide (FEMA 497). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 2-1 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

2.2 NT Contents 

The NT is initially populated with NFIP data. Data fields within the NT require supplemental 

information collected from several sources. The NT is organized into two basic sections: 

 Limited Data View (“Limited Data”). This view enables the user to enter data from a brief 

visual inspection of the property; limited communication with the property owner, 

occupant, or neighbor; and basic flood risk data from the Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) or Flood Insurance Study (FIS). 

 Detailed Data View (“Detailed Data”). This view is suitable when a more thorough 

inspection of the property and its surroundings is conducted as well as when local or State 

officials are contacted for structure-specific information and coordination of on-site data 

collection efforts. 

2.2.1 Limited Data View 

The Limited Data View includes three main subsections or “tabs.” 

Address and Updates (Figure 2-1) 

2 1 

4 3

Figure 2-1. Address and Updates tab 

1.	 The “grayed out” boxes for the NFIP Address are imported from the BureauNet Data and 

represent information that cannot be manipulated by the user. The correct location 

2-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

information is important in writing and executing all legal documents, such as contracts 

and agreements. 

2.	 Changes made to any part of the address (e.g., incorrect spelling) should be noted by 

checking the box for Incorrect Community and/or Address. 

3.	 Updates of any nature are denoted by checking the Updates Made box. 

4.	 Mitigation measures observed on the site can be recorded in the Field menus. A drop down 

menu lists potential options to choose from. Past mitigation efforts should be studied 

closely to determine what has or has not worked in the past. This will help in avoiding 

future inappropriate or ineffective mitigation approaches. 

Site Observations (Figure 2-2) 

1 

2 

Figure 2-2. Site Observations tab 

The Site Observations tab contains some of the information regarding the physical characteristics 

of the building to be mitigated. It may need to be supplemented by detailed investigation, but will 

greatly facilitate the initial decision-making process regarding suitability and type of mitigation 

measure to select. 

1.	 Checking the Flooding this site will have community-wide implications box indicates 

whether or not flooding will have a critical impact on the community. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 2-3 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

2.	 Additional drop down menus on the Site Observations tab include Structure Type, 

Condition of Structure, Foundation Type, and Condition of Foundation. The particular 

menu shown is for Structure Type. 

Flood Risk and Mitigation Possibilities (Figure 2-3) 

1 

2 

Figure 2-3. Flood Risk and Mitigation Possibilities tab 

1.	 When the Possible mitigation measures observed 

button is marked, the Possible Mitigation 

Measures pop-up window appears. Checking any 

of the boxes suggests a mitigation action to take. 

2.	 This tab also includes a box to indicate whether 

there is adequate clearance around the structure to 

access the site. 

2-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

2.2.2 Detailed Data View 

The Detailed Data View includes four main subsections or “tabs.” 

Additional Site Information (Figure 2-4) 

2 3

1 

4 

Figure 2-4. Additional Site Information tab 

1.	 Regulatory Requirements has information on local regulatory requirements related to 

floodplain management. The local regulatory codes will include relevant requirements, 

including more restrictive requirements related to freeboard, height restrictions, or storage 

requirements. 

2.	 Equipment/Contents is available if specialized equipment such as machinery or high dollar 

contents that might be found at a manufacturing or retail site are present. The information 

will accompany other costs in assessing the benefit/cost ratio (BCR) of a project. 

3.	 Building Market Value, Building Replacement Value, and Land Value information is 

generally obtained from the county tax assessor. This information will be of primary 

importance in determining if substantial improvement requirements are applicable and is 

essential in the benefit/cost process. 

4.	 Building footprint. This information will be useful in confirming property values and in 

indicating the potential mitigation alternatives. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 2-5 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

Elevation and Hazard (Figure 2-5) 

1 

2 

Figure 2-5. Elevation and Hazard tab 

1.	 The Elevation and Hazard tab contains the required elevation data. The data listed for 

collection in the EC or Elevation Data section is the same information collected in Sections 

B and C of a FEMA Elevation Certificate. This section contains additional information that 

was previously collected by an engineer, surveyor, or qualified local official from the 

FIRM or FIS, as well as surveyed building elevations. 

2.	 See Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.4 for sources of base flood elevation data. 

2-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

Claims (Figure 2-6) 

2 

1 

3 

Figure 2-6. Claims tab 

1.	 The Known Claims in the NFIP Summary section on the Claims tab includes a summary of 

past NFIP claims data on the structure. 

2.	 The Missing Claims section provides an opportunity to add additional or missing claims. 

3.	 Checking the Claims Update Required box signifies that added claims should be captured 

as part of the official record for the property. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 2-7 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

Events and Total Damages (Figure 2-7) 

2 

1 

Figure 2-7. Events and Total Damages tab 

1.	 Information about specific uninsured flood events by name and date, including data about 

frequency, source, depth, velocity, damages, etc., can be entered and viewed in the area 

designated. 

2.	 The Events and Total Damages tab also contains the summary and totals for past events 

and claims made under the NFIP. The claims and damage information is used to assist in 

the development of benefit/cost ratios necessary to select the appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

2.3 Additional Sources of Information 

Other sources of information identified in this subsection are either related to obtaining BureauNet 

data or provide supplemental information to manually enter into the NT. The additional sources 

include the following: 

	 Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) 

	 Community Information System (CIS) 

	 FEMA Regional Offices 

	 Other Federal agencies 

	 State, regional, and local agencies 

2-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

2.3.1 Flood Insurance Studies 

A detailed FIS provides the data and maps needed for both the flood insurance and floodplain 

management aspects of the NFIP. The FIS presents compiled flood risk data for specific 

watercourses, lakes, and coastal flood-hazard areas within a community. It delineates flood-hazard 

areas, designates flood risk zones, and establishes Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). An FIS thereby 

serves as the basis for determining flood insurance rates, regulating floodplain development, and 

carrying out other floodplain management measures. FISs and FIRMs can be viewed and ordered 

online at http://store.msc.fema.gov. 

The FIS consists of three components: 

	 The FIS report 

	 The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 

	 The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM, or Floodway Map, included in studies 

prepared before 1985) 

The FIS report includes the following: 

	 A narrative that appraises the community’s flood history, and describes the purpose of the 

study, historic floods, and the area and streams studied 

	 Maps of the study area often with photographs of historic floods 

	 Tables summarizing various study data 

	 Computed flood profiles of the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods for the stream reaches 

studied 

The FIRMs and FBFMs are essential parts of the FIS that portray the following: 

	 Floodplain boundaries 

	 BFE and cross-section locations (for detailed study areas) 

	 Delineation of floodways, where applicable 

	 Designation of flood risk zones such as A and V Zones 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 2-9 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

FIRMs may not provide flood elevations or a floodway designation for floodplains in undeveloped areas. If the data 

are not available from a community’s FIS or FIRMs, the community may need to investigate the possible existence of 

more recent or more detailed flood studies conducted by other agencies. If no reasonable floodplain information is 

available, a qualified engineer should review available data and determine if a new study should be conducted. This 

is especially important if a history of flood problems is not reflected on the FIRM or if the site is in a small watershed 

that has experienced an increase of recent development. 

Some communities’ FIS and FIRMs can be several years old. They will not reflect recent developments and may 

have been generated using older, less accurate mapping techniques. Map modernization work is in progress, 

including the development of up-to-date flood hazard data for areas across the U.S. and the creation of maps and 

data in digital format such as the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). 

CAUTION 

2.3.2 FEMA Regional Offices 

FEMA has divided the United States and outlying territories into 10 regions (see Appendix F for 

contact information or http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm). Each office serves 

several states and territories with regional staff who work directly with their constituents to plan 

for disasters, develop mitigation programs, and respond when major disasters occur. Each of the 

10 FEMA regions has a Risk Insurance and Risk Reduction Branch to handle flood insurance and 

community mitigation issues. A designated RL Coordinator is available in each region to 

coordinate RL activities (see Appendix F). 

2.3.3 Other Federal Agencies 

Other Federal agencies that may have information about past flooding events, damages incurred, 

and areas of repetitive flooding include the following: 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Floodplain Information Reports 

 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigations 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Watershed Studies 

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Floodplain Studies 

 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Floodplain Studies 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE focuses on public works and engineering 

missions, and works with FEMA and other Federal agencies to respond to disasters, including 

flooding. They also advise communities, industries, and property owners about protection 

measures, including flood damage prevention measures. The USACE has eight divisions 

composed of several district offices across the country 

2-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

(http://www.usace.army.mil/divdistmap.html). The USACE can provide information on pending 

and completed flood protection projects, level of protection provided, and post completion flood 

events. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The National Climatic 

Data Center (NCDC) keeps records of historic storm events, including flooding. The database can 

be accessed online at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms. Data 

provided include the date and extent of the storm as well as the overall value of damage. A 

description of the storm is also sometimes available and can provide specific detail about damage. 

NOAA’s Flooding Page (http://www.noaa.gov/floods.html) includes a link to NOAA’s Hydrologic 

Information Center, which monitors not only river/stream flow conditions but also other conditions 

such as soil moisture, snow, and longer-term meteorological outlooks. The National Hurricane 

Center (NHC) Tropical Prediction Center website (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/) has information 

from real-time updates to forecasts and historical background information on hurricane-related 

flooding. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS operates and maintains a network of 

approximately 7,000 stream gauges. Historical records and real-time data are available for many of 

these gauges, which are valuable tools in helping to quantify floods. The USGS uses this 

information to produce publications documenting flood events. Such publications include 

descriptions of the events and detail the cause of flooding, damage caused, storm frequency, and 

other pertinent information. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Under the Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention Act (Public Law [P.L.] 83-566), the NRCS conducts watershed plans, river basin 

surveys and studies, flood hazard analyses, and floodplain management assistance. As watershed 

boundary Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage is completed, statewide and national 

data layers will be made available publicly via the Geospatial Data Gateway at 

http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA conducts hydraulics and hydrologic 

(H+H) research and analyses, develops H+H modeling software, and prepares environmental 

impact statements and environmental assessments for projects related to transportation, which can 

be accessed online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/index.cfm. The data from 

the FHWA are for areas near bridges. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA divides the Tennessee River watershed into 12 

divisions, each overseen by a TVA Watershed Team. Information about unregulated stream flows 

at sites across the Tennessee Valley, and watershed maps, environmental reviews, and 

environmental reports can be found at http://www.tva.gov. The TVA also maintains stream gauges 

and manages river forecasters who track storms, predict stream flows and flood heights, and 

calculate runoff amounts. 

2.3.4 State, Regional, and Local Agencies 

A number of State, regional, and local government agencies have information that can be used to 

supplement the data entries of NT (see Table 2-1). This information includes delineations of 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 2-11 
Chapter 2 – The National Tool (NT) 

specific areas and/or structures that have been flooded in the past and the extent of damage for 

each structure. 

Table 2-1. State, Regional, and Local Sources for Information about Flood Events 

State Agencies (Departments 

or Divisions) 

Regional Agencies and 

Organizations Local Agencies 

 Emergency Management 

 Environmental Conservation 

and Protection 

 Floodplain Management 

 Geologic Surveys 

 Homeland Security 

 Natural Resources 

 Transportation 

 Water Resources 

 Emergency Management 

 Flood Control Districts 

 Levee Improvement 

Districts 

 Regional Planning and/or 

Economic Development 

Commissions 

 River Basin Commissions 

 Emergency Management 

Agencies and Coordinators 

 Local Planning 

Commissions 

 Municipal Utilities 

 Public Works 

2-12 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

CHAPTER 3 – SELECTING MITIGATION MEASURES 

3.1 Introduction 

The remainder of this document focuses on the process of selecting appropriate mitigation 

measures. This process includes the following steps: 

1. Initial screening using NT. Conduct an initial screening using NT and determine 

appropriate mitigation measures by answering questions regarding flooding and structure 

characteristics (use Worksheet A, Technical Considerations Scorecard). 

2. Evaluate appropriate mitigation measures. Based on information provided in Chapters 

4 through 10, record rankings of each mitigation measure (use Worksheet B, 

Appropriate Mitigation Measures). 

This process is designed to assist State and local Hazard Mitigation Planning - For 

officials in discussing which mitigation measures are information on the mitigation planning 

the most appropriate to pursue with the individual process refer to the FEMA Mitigation 

property owners and other community officials who Planning “How-To” Guides which are based 

may need to make or support decisions. The initial on 44 CFR, Part 201 – Mitigation Planning 

results of the selection process may not always (see Section 1.3). FEMA publication 511 

identify a single best option for any particular provides an overview of how to conduct an 

situation. However, it will narrow the options and area analysis to determine whether a 

document the selection process for all participants. It neighborhood-level approach, such as 

is assumed that structures and/or areas of interest drainage improvements, relocation, or 

acquisition, would resolve the flood problem within the community have been identified based on (see Chapter 7, Area Analysis in FEMA 511, past flooding and a comprehensive mitigation Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding).

planning process. 

This chapter includes the following: 

 Section 3.2, Mitigation Measures Overview, provides a brief overview of seven 

categories of mitigation measures. Additional information on each mitigation measure is 

located in Chapters 4 through 10 with appropriate references for detailed information. 

 Section 3.3, Initial Screening Using the NT, describes the initial screening process for 

identifying appropriate mitigation measures using data that are collected in the NT. 

Completed examples of worksheets are included in Appendix A. 

 Section 3.4, Hazard and Structure Characteristics, includes information on the 

questions used in the initial screening process. This subsection describes how to obtain 

the data needed to answer the question and provides references for additional 

information. A screenshot from the NT illustrates where this information is located. 

 Section 3.5, Evaluating the Mitigation Measures, describes how to further evaluate the 

identified mitigation measures following the initial screening process. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-1 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3.2 Mitigation Measures Overview 

This subsection introduces seven categories of flood mitigation measures designed to protect 

properties from flooding. These mitigation measures are further discussed in Chapters 4 through 

10. 

3.2.1 Drainage Improvements (see also Chapter 4) 

The drainage system moves surface water through channels to a receiving body of water. The 

system itself contains several conveyance systems that carry water away and may contain storage 

facilities to store excess water until it can be removed. Examples of improvements to regional or 

local drainage systems include modifying a culvert, stream, or river channel to provide a greater 

carrying capacity to move floodwaters off areas where damage occurs. 

3.2.2 Barriers (see also Chapter 5) 

Examples of barriers include building a floodwall or levee around a structure or a group of 

structures to hold back floodwaters. Levees are usually embankments of compacted soil, and 

floodwalls are usually built of concrete or masonry or a combination of both. Levees require 

more space than a floodwall since the sides of a levee are sloped to provide stability and resist 

erosion. An alternative to a permanent barrier is a temporary one, such as large water-filled tubes 

or bladders, metal walls lined with impermeable materials that act as floodwalls, and expandable 

gates that block floodwaters from entering structures through openings such as doors and 

windows. 

3.2.3 Wet Floodproofing (see also Chapter 6) 

Wet floodproofing a structure involves making uninhabited portions of the structure resistant to 

flood damage and allowing water to enter during flooding. Damage to a structure is reduced 

since water is allowed to enter and balances the hydrostatic pressure on both sides of the walls 

and floors. 

3.2.4 Dry Floodproofing (see also Chapter 7) 

Dry floodproofing involves sealing structures to prevent floodwaters from entering. A structure 

can be dry floodproofed using waterproof coatings or impermeable membranes to prevent 

seepage of floodwater through the walls, installing watertight shields over doors or windows, and 

installing sewer backup prevention measures. 

3.2.5 Elevation (see also Chapter 8) 

Elevating a structure consists of raising the lowest floor to or above the flood level. This can be 

done by elevating the entire structure, including the floor, or by leaving the structure in its 

existing position and constructing a new, elevated floor within the structure. The method used 

depends on the construction type, foundation type, and flooding conditions. 

3-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3.2.6 Relocation (see also Chapter 9) 

Relocating a structure includes moving the structure out of the floodplain to higher ground where 

it will not be exposed to flooding. The process involved in relocating a structure includes raising 

the structure and placing it on a wheeled vehicle to be moved to a new location. 

3.2.7 Acquisition (see also Chapter 10) 

Acquisition involves buying and tearing down a structure. The property owners would then move 

to another property that is located outside of the floodplain. A new building meeting all building 

and flood protection code requirements can be built on the lot or the lot can remain as open 

space. 

3.3 Initial Screening Using the NT 

The steps listed below describe how to fill out Worksheet A, Technical Considerations 

Scorecard. Appendix A includes a completed sample packet. For blank versions of this 

worksheet, see Appendix B. 

1. Use Worksheet A, Technical Considerations Scorecard, to record 

responses to the nine questions under the first column (titled “Question”).

For background information on each question, see Section 

3.4, Hazard and Structure Characteristics. This subsection 

also discusses how to obtain the data needed to answer 

these questions as well as where this information, once 

collected, is located in the NT. 

2. Based on the responses selected in the Response column of Worksheet A, 

for each row with a check mark in the “Response” column, check all 

boxes that are not blacked out.

Repeat this step for each question. Include any notes or comments 

in the far right-hand column of Worksheet A. 

3. Place an “X” in the row (titled “Appropriate Mitigation Measures”) of Worksheet A 

under the column of any mitigation measure that does not include a black box in any 

selected response row. 

For example, a response of manufactured home to Question #1 will exclude the 

selection of wet floodproofing and dry floodproofing in the Appropriate 

Mitigation Measures row. In the sample packet in Appendix A, the response of 

“Deep” to Question #6 eliminates the mitigation measures of drainage 

improvements, wet floodproofing, and dry floodproofing from consideration as 

appropriate. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-3 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Worksheet A: Technical Considerations Scorecard 

Date Prepared: Date Property Visited:

Property Owner Name: Legend Mitigation measure is not appropriate. Property Address: Mitigation measure may be appropriate and requRepetitive Loss Property Locator Number: Mitigation measure is appropriate. Prepared by: NT Reference indicates where the information may be fo

Instructions to complete Worksheet A: Technical Considerations Scorecard 1. For each of the questions, based on the property information, put a check mark in the appropriate box in the “Response” column. 

2. For the row with a check mark in the “Response” column, check all boxes that are not blacked out. 3. After completing the questions, review each of the mitigation measures columns. Select the “Appropriate Mitigation Measures” box only for those columns that do 

boxes in the selected response row. 

Question Response 

Drainage 

Improvements 

Barriers

Wet

Floodproofing 

Dry

Floodproofing Elevation 

Relocation 

Acquisition 

1. What is the structure type? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab

 Wood Frame/ Metal/ 

Other 

 Concrete/ Masonry/ 

Brick Faced 

 Manufactured Home

2. What is the condition of the structure? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab

 Good Fair Poor 

3. What is the foundation type? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab Diagram numbers refer to Elevation Certificate found in the NT. 

Slab-on-grade (Diagram 1, 3, 6, or 7) Basement/ Split level 

(Diagram 2 or 4) 

 Piers, Posts, Columns, or 

Crawlspace (Diagram 5 or 8) 

3-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures fo
Chapter 3 − Selectin

Question Response 

Drainage 

Improvements 

Barriers

Wet

Floodproofing 

Dry

Floodproofing Elevation 

Relocation 

Acquisition 

4. What is the number of stories? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab

 1-2  3 or more 

5. What is the building footprint? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Additional Site Information tab

 < 2,500 sq ft  > 2,500 sq ft 

6. What is the flood protection depth? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab

Deep (> 6ft) Moderate (3 to 6 ft) 

 Shallow (<3 ft) 

7. Does flash flooding occur at the project site? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab

 Yes No

8. What is the flood velocity? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab

 Fast (>5 fps)  Slow/Moderate 

(<5 fps) 

9. Is the structure located in the floodway? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab

 Yes No 

Appropriate Mitigation Measures fps = feet per second ft = feet sq ft = square feet Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 

3.4 Hazard and Structure Characteristics 

3.4.1 Question #1. What is the structure type? 

What are the most common structure types? The most often used structure types include 

wood frame, metal, concrete, masonry, manufactured home, or a combination of two or more of 

these types. Definitions of these terms are included in the Glossary in Appendix I. 

What is the significance of the structure type? The structure type influences the considerations 

that will need to be addressed. 

 Dry floodproofing may not be an appropriate mitigation measure for a wood-frame or 

metal structure since they are difficult to make watertight. 

 Solid masonry, stone walls, or wood-frame construction with a brick veneer may not be 

appropriate for elevation or relocation projects since these structures will need significant 

support during the lifting process, which may be expensive. 

 If the construction type is a manufactured home, wet and dry floodproofing are not 

appropriate mitigation measures because virtually any depth of flooding causes 

significant and irreparable damage. 

Where is structure type information located in NT? The structure type can be found under 

Limited Data View on the Site Observations tab (Figure 3-1). 

Figure 3-1. Site Observations tab - Structure Type menu 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-7

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter III, Parameters of Retrofitting (page III-31). 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.2.2.1 – Site for additional information on structure types (page 6-13). 

3.4.2 Question #2. What is the condition of the structure? 

How is the condition of the structure determined? This information is based on the level of 

repair needed and may be obtained by a site visit. It is recommended that the local building 

official be consulted for the condition of the structure. An explanation of the terms (Good, Fair, 

and Poor) can be found in FEMA 497, National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide.

The condition of the structure will have implications for selecting an appropriate mitigation 

measure: 

 For a structure in fair condition, wet and dry floodproofing, elevation, and relocation may 

not be appropriate mitigation measures unless it is determined that the structure is sound 

enough to undergo the mitigation measure. 

 Wet and dry floodproofing, elevation, and relocation are not appropriate mitigation 

measures for structures in poor condition since these projects may not be technically 

feasible or cost-effective. 

Where is structure condition information located in NT? An assessment of the structure 

condition can be found on the Site Observations tab in Limited Data View (Figure 3-2). 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Figure 3-2. Site Observations tab - Condition of Structure drop down menu 

Where to find additional information 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter III, Parameters of Retrofitting (pages III-32 to III-34). 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.2.2.1 – Site for additional information on the condition of the structure 

(pages 6-13 to 6-14). 

3.4.3 Question #3. What is the foundation type? 

What types of foundations are most common? The main types of foundations are slab-ongrade; basement; elevated on piers, posts, piles, columns, or shear walls; and crawlspaces. Each 

type has specific considerations that can affect a mitigation project: 

 Slab-on-grade structures are more difficult to elevate or relocate than structures on 

basement or crawlspace foundations, if the slab is attached. 

 Elevating structures on basement foundations involves elevating or relocating utility 

system components usually found in basements, such as furnaces and hot water heaters. 

In addition, if the structure is substantially damaged or is being substantially improved, 

the basement may need to be filled in to meet local floodplain regulations. Basement 

3-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

walls are subject to hydrostatic pressure and buoyancy forces, which may make barriers 

and dry floodproofing inappropriate mitigation measures. 

 Structures with piers, posts, piles, columns, shear walls, or crawlspaces should not be dry 

floodproofed since the floors are not watertight and flotation will cause damage to the 

foundation. 

Where is foundation information located in the NT? The type and condition of the foundation 

can be found on the Site Observations tab in the Limited Data View (Figure 3-3). 

Figure 3-3. Site Observations tab - Foundation Type menu 

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 85. Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard Foundation and 

Installation Guide. See Chapter 9, Foundation Systems. 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter III, Parameters of Retrofitting (pages III-28 to III-29). 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.2.2.1 – Site for additional information on foundation types (page 6-14). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-9 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3.4.4 Question #4. What is the number of stories? 

Why is the number of stories in a structure important? Multi-story structures are difficult to 

elevate and relocate. One consideration is that moving overhead power lines along the route may 

cause the cost of the mitigation measure to increase and thereby reduce the cost-effectiveness. It 

is also technically more difficult to elevate or relocate a larger structure than a smaller more 

compact structure. 

Where is number of stories information located in NT? The number of stories for the 

structure may be identified on the Site Observations tab in the Limited Data View (Figure 3-4). 

Figure 3-4. Site Observations tab - Number of Stories 

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.2.2.1 – Site (page 6-11). 

3-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3.4.5 Question #5. What is the building footprint? 

Why is footprint an important issue? Larger, heavier, more complex shaped buildings are 

more difficult and expensive to elevate or relocate. While large buildings are not necessarily a 

different type of construction, they do present a significant challenge to the elevation or 

relocation contractor, primarily because of their weight or configuration. They may include a 

rambling, ranch-style house; a multi-storied house or commercial building; or a very large and 

heavy masonry, concrete, or stone building. Rambling construction can be handled by cutting the 

building into two or more pieces and elevating each piece individually. Once elevated, the 

individual sections are rejoined and cosmetically corrected to disguise the fact the building was 

cut. 

Where is structure size information located in NT? The building footprint area or square feet 

of the structure can be found on the Additional Site Information tab in the Detailed Data View 

(Figure 3-5). 

Figure 3-5. Additional Site Information tab - Building footprint 

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.3.1 - Additional Site Information tab (page 6-18). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-11
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3.4.6 Question #6. What is the flood protection depth? 

What is flood protection depth? Flood protection depth is the depth above the lowest adjacent 

grade to which a mitigation measure is designed. It is 

the flood protection elevation (or flood protection Flood Protection Depth Example. If the 

level) minus the elevation of the lowest adjacent base flood elevation is 480 feet above 

grade. "Flood protection elevation" is used in other sea level and the lowest adjacent grade 

FEMA mitigation publications, including FEMA 259. is 475 feet above sea level and the 

community wants to have the margin of It is usually the BFE plus 1 or more feet of freeboard. protection of a 1-foot freeboard, the flood Floodwaters, even when they are not moving, exert protection depth is (480 + 1) -475 = 6 

pressure on structural components such as walls and feet. 

concrete floor slabs. This hydrostatic pressure is 

caused by the weight of the water and increases as the depth of the water rises. 

Flood protection depth may be a higher level, especially if a recent flood was higher than the 

base flood. If protecting to the BFE proves infeasible, the designer may want to use a lower flood 

protection level, such as the depth of the repetitive flooding. For example, if the building is a 

large masonry industrial building on a slab foundation, elevation may be infeasible. Dry 

floodproofing to 3 feet may be the only feasible approach, so the flood protection depth would be 

3 feet, even though the base flood depth may be 4 or more feet above lowest adjacent grade. 

How does flood depth affect a structure? Floodwater, including water-saturated soil, pushes in 

on walls and up on floors, posing a special hazard for basement walls. Because pressure 

increases with the depth of the water, the pressure on basement walls is greater than the pressure 

on the walls of the upper floor. This pressure is made even greater by the weight of the saturated 

soil that surrounds the basement. Drainage improvements will not be technically feasible for 

structures that experience deep flooding. Dry floodproofing is not an appropriate mitigation 

measure for flooding that exceeds 3 feet due to the hydrostatic pressure on the structure. 

How is flood depth calculated? Flood depth is the difference between the water surface 

elevation and the grade elevation of the flooded area. Ground elevations are established by 

topographic surveys and BFEs are included on FIRM panels where a detailed study has been 

performed and should be estimated using the flood profile in the corresponding FIS. 

Guidance provided in FEMA 265, Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A 

Areas, suggests other methods to determine the BFE and appropriate Design Flood Elevation 

(DFE). One method involves extrapolating existing BFE data by using the flood profile from a 

FIS for a site that is within 500 feet upstream of a detailed studied portion of a stream and the 

floodplain and channel bottom slope characteristics are fairly similar. FEMA 265 also provides 

information on QUICK-2, which is a computer program developed by FEMA that may be used 

to compute BFEs. This software program is available on the FEMA website at 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/frm_soft.shtm. 

Where is depth of flooding information located in NT? The depth of flooding may be 

identified in the NT on the Elevation and Hazard tab in the Detailed Data View in the “Depth of 

100 yr flood at site” box (Figure 3-6, number 3). When the BFE (Figure 3-6, number 1) and 

Lowest Adjacent Grade (Figure 3-6, number 2) are entered in the EC or Elevation Data section, 

3-12 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

the flood depth of 100-year flood (Figure 3-6, number 3) at the project site is calculated 

automatically by the NT. The Lowest Adjacent Grade is subtracted from the BFE to determine 

flood depth. Both the BFE and Lowest Adjacent Grade information can be found on a FEMA 

Elevation Certificate. Freeboard requirements are included in the Additional Site Information 

Tab (Figure 3-7, number 1). The drop down box includes options for the amount of freeboard 

required. 

2 

3 

1 

Figure 3-6. Elevation and Hazard tab - Flood Depth 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-13 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

1 

Figure 3-7. Additional Site Information tab - Regulatory Requirements 

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 85. Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard Foundation and 

Installation Guide. See Chapter 5, Natural Hazards – Design Considerations 5.2.2 Flood 

Elevation and Depth (pages 5-18 to 5-20). 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter III, Parameters of Retrofitting (pages III-21 to III-23). 

FEMA 265. Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas. 

FEMA 480. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Floodplain Management Requirements: 

A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials. See Unit 4 – Using NFIP Studies and 

Maps for instruction on how to use the FIRM and FIS to determine the BFE. 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.3.2.2-Additional Flood Hazard Data (page 6-24). 

FEMA 499. Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction. Technical Fact Sheet No. 4 Lowest 

Floor Elevation. 

3-14 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3.4.7 Question #7. Does flash flooding occur at the project site? 

Why is flash flooding important? Flash flooding determines the amount of warning time prior 

to an impending flood. With adequate warning, property owners can be better prepared to protect 

themselves and their property. For example, property owners in the floodplains of large rivers 

such as the Mississippi and Missouri may know days in advance that flooding is occurring 

upstream and will eventually reach their property. Conversely, the warning time may be very 

short on small streams or drainageways where flooding from an intense thunderstorm may begin 

only minutes after the rainfall begins. With adequate warning, property owners can be better 

prepared to implement actions designed to protect themselves and their property. Mitigation 

measures that require human intervention to operate such as barriers, and wet and dry 

floodproofing may not be appropriate mitigation measures without adequate warning time. 

How is flash flooding determined? Information on whether the structure is subject to flash 

flooding may be obtained from the FIS. In addition, surrounding and upstream terrain is a good 

indicator of the likelihood of flash flooding. 

Where is flash flooding information located in NT? To identify whether the structure is in an 

area that experiences flash flooding and thereby has a short warning time, the Additional Flood 

Hazard Data section of the Elevation and Hazard tab in Detailed Data View would be reviewed 

(Figure 3-8). 

Figure 3-8. Elevation and Hazard tab - Flash Flooding 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-15 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 85. Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard Foundation and 

Installation Guide. See Chapter 5, Natural Hazards – Flood Characteristics 5.2.1 Frequency, 

Duration and Rate of Rise (pages 5-16 to 5-18). 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter III, Parameters of Retrofitting (page III-25). 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.3.2.2 – Additional Flood Hazard Data (page 6-23). 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 6, Warning and 

Emergency Services. 

3.4.8 Question #8. What is the flood velocity? 

What is flood velocity? Flood velocity is the speed at which floodwaters move. It is usually 

measured in feet per second (fps). Flow velocities during riverine floods can easily reach 5 to 10 

fps, and in some situations may even be greater; 10 fps is roughly equivalent to 7 miles per hour. 

What affects flood velocity? The velocity of floodwaters depends on factors such as the slope 

of the stream channel and floodplain and surface roughness. Floodwaters generally move faster 

along streams in steep mountainous areas than streams in flatter areas. Flood velocity also 

depends on surface roughness. For example, water will flow more swiftly over impervious 

surfaces, such as parking lots, roads, and other paved surfaces, than over ground covered with 

large rocks, trees, dense vegetation, or other obstacles. 

Flood velocities in the floodplain are usually higher nearer the stream channel than at the 

outermost fringes of the floodplain where water may flow very slowly or not at all. Even with 

only a few feet of flooding depth, floodwaters with velocities as low as 1 or 2 fps can exert 

tremendous forces on a building. 

There are several reasons why flow velocity is important. The pressure on the structure caused 

by flowing water, known as “hydrodynamic pressure,” pushes harder on walls than still water. 

Hydrodynamic forces are caused by water moving around an object and consist of frontal 

pressure against the structure, drag forces along the sides, and negative forces on the downstream 

side. In addition, flowing water can cause erosion and scour. Erosion removes soil that lowers 

the ground surface across an area. Scour is the removal of soil around objects that obstruct flow, 

such as foundation walls. Both erosion and scour can weaken a structure by removing supporting 

soil and undermining the foundation. In general, the greater the flow velocity and the larger the 

structure, the greater the extent and depth of the erosion and scour will be. The impact, drag, and 

suction from fast-moving water may move a building from its foundation or otherwise cause 

structural damage or failure. Any mitigation measure that is implemented in an area that 

experiences high flood velocity (5 fps or greater) will need to factor this technical consideration 

into its design. 

3-16 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

How is flood velocity calculated? The mean flood velocity in the floodway can be obtained 

from the community’s Flood Insurance Study. Mean floodway velocities can be obtained from 

the FIS by matching the cross-section on the FIRM with the cross-section in the FIS Floodway 

Data Table. The floodway’s mean velocity usually overestimates the flood velocity within the 

flood fringe, which is the portion of the floodplain lying outside of the floodway. In general, 

floodwaters move slower as they extend outward from the floodway. However, the floodway 

velocities can be used as a general measure to determine cross-section locations within the 

floodplain where floodwaters will move relatively faster or slower, and provide an upper limit 

for velocities in the flood fringe. 

Unfortunately, there is usually no definitive source of information to determine potential flood 

velocities in the vicinity of specific buildings. Hydraulic computer models or hand computations 

based on existing floodplain studies may provide flood velocities in the channel and overbank 

areas. Where current analysis data are not available, historical information from past flood events 

is probably the most reliable source. The property owner should consider special precautions if 

velocities exceed 5 fps or if there is a history of higher velocities during previous local floods. 

The estimation of design flood velocities in coastal flood hazard areas is subject to considerable 

uncertainty. There is little reliable historical information concerning the velocity of floodwaters 

during coastal flood events. Floodwaters can approach a site from many different directions and 

the flow velocities can vary from close to zero to high velocities during a flood event. FEMA 55 

provides a formula to calculate the design flood velocity in coastal areas (see FEMA 55, Coastal 

Construction Manual, page 11-10). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-17 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Where is velocity of flooding information located in the NT? The velocity of flooding may be 

identified in the NT on the Elevation and Hazard tab in the Detailed Data View (Figure 3-9). 

Figure 3-9. Elevation and Hazard tab - Flood Velocity 

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 55. Coastal Construction Manual. See Chapter 11, Determining Site-Specific Loads, 

Subsection 11.6.6 Design Flood Velocity (V) for a description of how to estimate the velocity of 

floodwaters during coastal flood events (pages 11-9 to 11-11). 

FEMA 85. Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard Foundation and 

Installation Guide. See Chapter 5, Natural Hazards – Design Considerations 5.2.4 

Hydrodynamic Forces (pages 5-22 to 5-24). Section 10.3.1 Velocity Data in Chapter 10, Preengineered Foundations, includes tools and sources of information that are available to provide 

an estimate of the floodwater velocity. They include hydraulic modeling, documented historic 

information, alternate methodologies for estimating velocities, knowledge of past flooding, and 

site indicators. 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter III, Parameters of Retrofitting (page III-24). 

FEMA 312. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding. 

See Chapter 2, Introduction to Retrofitting – Flow Velocity (pages 13 to 15). 

3-18 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.3.2.2-Additional Flood Hazard Data (page 6-23). 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 10, Retrofitting – Design 

Parameters (page 10-17). 

3.4.9 Question #9. Is the structure located in the floodway? 

What is a floodway? The floodplain associated with the base flood (or the 100-year flood) is 

known as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Within the SFHA of a riverine system is the 

floodway, which is where water is likely to be deepest and fastest. It is the area of the floodplain 

that should be reserved and kept free of obstructions to allow floodwaters to move downstream. 

Requirements are included in 44CFR 60.3 (d)(3) for proposed development in regulatory 

floodways. This requirement applies to all types of development where a floodway has been 

delineated. Delineated floodways are most often found in A1-30, AH, and AE-Zones; however, 

there may be information available for approximate A Zones as well. 

In floodway areas, encroachments, which include fill, new construction, substantial 

improvements, and other development, are not permitted if they result in any increase in the 

BFE. In general, very little development is permitted in the floodway since even minor 

encroachments lead to an increase in the BFE. Therefore, any mitigation measure, except 

demolition where the property is removed from the floodway, must meet NFIP, State, and local 

floodplain requirements regarding encroachment of the floodway conveyance area. 

How is a floodway identified? Whether the structure is located in the floodway will be 

determined based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. The floodway delineation, as depicted on 

the legend of the FIRM, will indicate whether the property is within or outside the floodway. A 

FIRM may be requested through the FEMA Map Service Center via the web at 

http://store.msc.fema.gov. 

Where is floodway information located in NT? Structures located in the floodway can be 

identified in the NT by viewing the Elevation and Hazard tab in the Detailed Data View (Figure 

3-10). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-19 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Figure 3-10. Elevation and Hazard tab - Floodway 

Where to find additional information: 

FEMA 85. Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard Foundation and 

Installation Guide. See Chapter 3, Regulatory Requirements for information on the regulatory 

requirements for development in the floodway (page 3-9). See Chapter 5, Natural Hazards – 

Design Considerations for a step by step description of how to use the FEMA Map Center 

website to access both the FIRM and FIS for a particular property (pages 5-1 to 5-16). 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter III, Parameters of Retrofitting (page III-26). 

FEMA 480. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Floodplain Management Requirements: 

A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials. See Unit 4 – Using NFIP Studies and 

Maps. 

FEMA 497. National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide. See Chapter 6, Data 

Collection with the NT 6.3.2.2 – Additional Flood Hazard Data (page 6-23). 

FEMA 499. Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction. Technical Fact Sheet No. 3 Using a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 

3-20 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

3.5 Evaluating the Mitigation Measures 

After completing Worksheet A, the Technical Considerations Scorecard, the next step is to 

evaluate the remaining appropriate mitigation measures to confirm applicability and to develop a 

recommendation for the property owners to consider. This information is recorded on 

Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation Measures. A sample of a completed Worksheet B is 

included in Appendix A. 

The steps in evaluating the remaining mitigation measures include the following: 

1. From Worksheet A, list each of the remaining mitigation measures with an “X” in the 

Appropriate Mitigation Measures row into the far left column (titled “Mitigation 

Measures”) of Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation Measures. 

2. Assign a relative ranking of High, Moderate, or Low for each consideration column 

based on the mitigation measures listed. 

3. Check the appropriate box (High, Moderate, or Low) under each of the decision factors. 

4. Add up the scores for each row of mitigation measures and record it in the Total Score 

column of Worksheet B. The mitigation measure with the LOWEST score is the measure 

that is most appropriate. 

5. Record additional information regarding the decision factors for the mitigation measures 

in the Notes column. 

The scores for the Technical Considerations and Relative Costs column are weighted higher 

(twice the value) than the other two columns. This means the result of these considerations have 

a greater influence on the outcome since these considerations are more significant in selecting an 

appropriate mitigation measure. 

The information contained in Chapters 4 through 10 is structured in the following manner to 

assist in the comparative evaluation process: 

 Technical Considerations provide other factors to determine whether the mitigation 

measure addresses the project objectives. 

 Relative Costs identify the associated costs of the mitigation measures and include a 

determination of cost-effectiveness. 

 Additional Considerations include Human Intervention, Annual Maintenance, and other 

factors in the decision-making process. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-21 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Worksheet B: Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

Date Prepared: Date Property Visited:

Property Owner Name: 

Property Address: 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 

Prepared by: 

Instructions to complete Worksheet B: Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

1. List the mitigation measures from the “Appropriate Mitigation Measures” row from Worksheet A, Technical

Considerations Scorecard (all checked boxes in last row of Worksheet A). 

2. Using information from Chapters 4 through 10 of FEMA 551, Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for 

Floodprone Structures, rank each measure as High, Moderate, or Low. See “Tips to Rank Mitigation Measures” on next 

page for additional information. 

3. Check the appropriate box (High, Moderate, or Low) under each of the decision factors. 

4. Total the points for each mitigation measure. The LOWEST total points indicates the most appropriate mitigation 

measure(s). 

5. Include notes describing how the determination was made for a particular ranking. 

*NOTE: Since Technical Considerations and Relative Costs are more significant in selecting appropriate mitigation measure(s), they are weighted 

higher than Human Intervention and Annual Maintenance. 

Decision Factors – LOWEST score is most appropriate – See Reverse for Notes 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Technical 

Considerations* Relative Costs* Human Intervention 

Annual 

Maintenance 

Total 

Score 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

3-22 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

Tips to Rank Mitigation Measures (Worksheet B Cont.) 

Technical Considerations 

Use the responses in Worksheet A, Technical Considerations Scorecard, to determine a ranking of High, Moderate, or Low for 

each mitigation measure. 

 If there are no grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration ranking is Low. 

 If there are 1 or 2 grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration score is Moderate. 

 If there are 3 or more grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration score is High. 

List any considerations in the implementation process that could be a limiting factor or clear constraint in the Notes section. 

Relative Costs 

Rank each of the mitigation measures based on the estimated cost to address the flood risk and the likelihood of costeffectiveness. Chapters 4 through 10 include information to rank each mitigation measure based on FEMA 312, Homeowner’s 

Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House From Flooding, and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of 

Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. Low cost indicates Low ranking and high cost indicates High ranking. 

Need for Human Intervention 

This reflects the need for human intervention to operate the mitigation measure and the warning time to conduct the required 

activity. Generally, the more “passive” the system (i.e., requiring the least human interaction), the more reliable the system will 

be over time, thereby resulting in a Low ranking. Mitigation measures that require human intervention, such as barriers and dry 

floodproofing, receive a High ranking.. 

Need for Annual Maintenance 

This reflects the level of effort of annual maintenance required by each mitigation measure. Similar to human intevention, less 

annual maintenance results in a Low ranking. 

NOTE: If two or more mitigation measures tie with the lowest score, other decision factors should be considered in determining 

the most appropriate mitigation measure(s). These considerations include, but are not limited to aesthetics; access to site; 

housing of occupants during the project; compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations; historic preservation 

concerns; and availability of contractors. 

The other decision factors should be listed in the Comments section of Worksheet C. 

NOTES: 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Technical Considerations 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 3-23 
Chapter 3 − Selecting Mitigation Measures 

This page intentionally left blank. 

3-24 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 4 – Drainage Improvements 

CHAPTER 4 – DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 

4.1 Introduction 

Depending on the specific characteristics of a 

particular watershed, one method to lessen the 

impacts of flooding is to modify the stream or 

river channel. Modifying the channel attempts to 

provide a greater carrying capacity for moving 

floodwaters away from areas where damage 

occurs. Methods of drainage improvements 

include overflow channels, channel straightening, 

restrictive crossing replacements, and 

rainfall/runoff storage. Table 4-1 presents a 

summary of advantages and disadvantages for 

using drainage improvements as a mitigation measure. 

Drainage improvements may help one area but 

create new problems in another. Whenever 

drainage improvements are considered as a flood 

mitigation measure, the effects upstream and 

downstream from the proposed improvements 

need to be considered. 

CAUTION

Table 4-1. Considerations for Using Drainage Improvement 

Advantages Disadvantages 





Can increase a stream’s carrying capacity through 

overflow channels, channel straightening, 

restrictive crossing replacements, or rainfall/runoff 

storage. 

Minor projects may be fundable under FEMA 

mitigation grant programs. 





May help one area but create new problems 

upstream or downstream of the proposed 

improvements. 

Channel straightening increases the 

capacity to accumulate and carry sediment, 

thereby potentially adversely affecting the 

surrounding areas and the stream system’s 

equilibrium. 

 There can be difficulty in setting culverts 

of a sufficient size in a stream to convey 

the 100-year flood discharge, unless weir 

flow over the road surface is considered. 

For a detailed discussion of drainage improvements, see FEMA 511, Reducing Damage from 

Localized Flooding, Chapter 8. Additional references are included in Section 4.5, Available 

Resources. 

4.2 Technical Considerations 

4.2.1 Depth of Flood 

The drainage improvement project is built to a certain flood protection level that may be 

exceeded by a larger flood event and thereby cause more damage to the structure than might 

have occurred without the project. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 4-1 
Chapter 4 – Drainage Improvements 

4.2.2 Adverse Impact Downstream 

A drainage improvement project, such as a channelized stream, can worsen flooding problems 

downstream because water is transported at a faster rate. Since the stream now has the capacity 

to carry more water, it will also have an increased capacity to accumulate and carry sediment. 

The additional sediment load may come from accelerated bank or stream bottom erosion. 

4.3 Relative Costs 

The relative cost ranking is based on the combination of the estimated costs for the drainage 

improvement project and a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

4.3.1 Estimated Cost 

The cost of a drainage improvement project will vary, depending on materials used and the size 

and scope of the project. In order to determine the relative cost of a drainage improvement 

project, examples of cost estimating items that may need to be considered include the following: 

	 Type of equipment needed for the job, such as the size of backhoe needed to excavate the 

trench. 

	 Depending on the depth and width of an excavation trench, shoring might be needed. If 

shoring is needed, amount of material needed for shoring. 

	 Removal of excavated material. For example, the estimated quantity and distance from 

the nearest dump site and if there are fees associated with dumping the excavated 

material. 

	 Supplies, such as length of pipe and number and type of pipe fittings needed 

Appendix C, Cost Estimating, provides guidance and references for conducting a more detailed 

cost estimate. Additional cost estimates can be obtained from R.S. Means’ Contractor’s Pricing 

Guide. A blank preliminary cost estimating worksheet (Worksheet D) is provided in Appendix 

B, Blank Worksheets. 

4.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness 

A component of the relative cost scoring is to include a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

Table D-1 in Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness, provides a quick screening for the 

cost-effectiveness of a project. The attributes included in the table are frequency of flood, level 

of damage, project cost, project benefits, and criticality (impact or loss of function). For 

example, if the frequency is the 10-year flood, the project will have a very high likelihood of 

cost-effectiveness. 

Based on the combination of the estimated cost of the project and the likelihood of costeffectiveness, a relative cost ranking will be assigned on Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation 

Measures. If the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is low, the ranking of relative cost will be either 

moderate or high, based on the estimated cost of the project. However, if the estimated cost is 

low and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is very high or high, the relative cost ranking will be 

low. 

4-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 4 – Drainage Improvements 

4.4 Additional Considerations 

4.4.1 Annual Maintenance 

A regular program of drainage system maintenance can detect and resolve problems before they 

become large obstructions and create flooding themselves. Examples of the work involved in 

maintaining the drainage system include the following: 

	 Enacting formal procedures to maintaining the 

public drainage system, the Community Rating Through Activity 540 (Drainage System 

Maintenance), the CRS encourages and System (CRS) provides credit for enacting provides credit for the following: these procedures (see text box at right);  A formal program that inspects the 

	 Involving citizens in the maintenance process drainage system, removes debris 

through organized “stream teams” or by and corrects drainage problem sites 

training homeowner associations;  Stream dumping regulations 

	 Enacting regulations against dumping; and  A capital improvements plan to 

	 Informing the public about the importance of eliminate or correct problem sites 

yard maintenance, keeping the drainage system 

free of obstructions, and notifying public officials about problems. 

4.5 Available Resources 

ASFPM. No Adverse Impact: A Toolkit for Common Sense Floodplain Management. 

http://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/NAI_Toolkit_2003.pdf 

FEMA. Promoting Mitigation in Louisiana: Performance Analysis. 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/casestudys/performance.pdf 

FEMA NFIP/CRS. CRS Credit for Drainage System Maintenance. 

http://www.training.fema.gov/emiweb/CRS/m7s5main.htm 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 8, Drainage 

Improvements. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 4-3 
Chapter 4 – Drainage Improvements 

This page left intentionally blank. 

4-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

CHAPTER 5 – BARRIERS 
 

5.1 Introduction 

Levees and floodwalls are types of flood 

protection barriers. A levee is typically a 

compacted earthen structure; a floodwall is an 

engineered structure usually built of concrete, 

masonry, or a combination of both (Figure 5-1). 

Barriers can be built to protect a single structure 

or multiple structures as regional facilities. 

Levees and floodwalls may not be used to bring 

a substantially damaged or substantially 

improved structure into compliance with the 

community’s floodplain management ordinance 

or law. 

CAUTION 

Figure 5-1. Structure protected by levee (on left) and floodwall (on right) 

(Source: FEMA 312) 

Table 5-1 includes a summary of advantages and disadvantages for using barriers as a mitigation 

measure. 

Table 5-1. Considerations for Using Barriers 

Advantages Disadvantages 

	 Floodwaters cannot reach the structure(s) in  Barriers may not be used to bring a substantially 

the protected area and therefore will not cause damaged or substantially improved structure 

damage through inundation, hydrodynamic into compliance with the community’s 
 

pressure, erosion, scour, or debris impact. 
 floodplain management ordinance or law. 

	 The structure and the area around it will be  Cost may be prohibitive, as a large area may be 

protected from inundation, and no significant required for construction. 
 

changes to the structure will be required. 
 	 Periodic maintenance is required. 

	 Local drainage can be affected, possibly 

creating or worsening flood problems for others. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 5-1 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

Types of barriers include levees, berms, floodwalls, and temporary barriers. 

5.1.1 Levees 

Levees are embankments or structures constructed of compacted earthen materials and differ 

from berms in size. Construction of a levee begins with excavating and inspecting the cutoff 

trench. Its initial purpose is to give the designer a better look at the subsurface soil conditions, so 

that the presence of roots, utility lines, and animal burrows, or changes in soil conditions are 

considered during the design process. The interior of the levee is composed of an impermeable 

core, usually clay. The lifts of impervious clay fill are placed in 6-inch layers and with each lift 

being compacted to the density specified by the designer of the levee (Figure 5-2). Like large 

floodwalls, levee design should be accomplished by a licensed engineer. 

Figure 5-2. Levee construction 

(Source: FEMA 259) 

5.1.2 Berms 

Berms can be utilized to completely encircle a building. However, they require a lot of room and 

a large quantity of earthen fill. Unless the fill is readily available nearby, hauling it to the site 

may prove to be cost-prohibitive. One way to decrease this expenditure is to incorporate the 

berm into existing high ground. 

5.1.3 Floodwalls 

A floodwall is an engineered structure made of reinforced concrete or reinforced concrete block 

and varies anywhere from 1 foot to over 20 feet in height. A floodwall can surround a structure 

or, depending on flood depths, site topography, and design preferences, can protect isolated 

openings such as doors, windows, and basement entrances, including entry doors and garage 

doors. When built with decorative bricks or blocks or as part of garden areas, floodwalls can 

become attractive architectural or landscaping features. But they can also be built solely for 

utility, usually at a much lower cost. 

Since a floodwall is made of concrete or masonry rather than compacted earth, it is more 

resistant to erosion than a levee and requires less space than a levee that provides the same level 

of protection. But floodwalls are often more expensive. As a result, floodwalls are normally 

considered only for sites where there is not enough room for a levee or where high flow 

5-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

velocities may erode a levee. Also, some property owners prefer floodwalls because they can be 

more aesthetically pleasing and allow for the preservation of existing site features, such as 

landscaping and trees (Figure 5-3). 

Figure 5-3. Structure protected by a floodwall with landscaping features 

5.1.4 Temporary Barriers 

There are several types of temporary barriers available to address many of the flooding problems 

typically encountered. They work with the same principles as permanent barriers such as 

floodwalls or levees, but can be removed, stored, and reused in subsequent flood events. Most of 

these barriers are meant to take the place of sandbag floodwalls and may also be used to 

reinforce existing permanent barriers such as levees or berms (Figures 5-4 and 5-5). 

Figure 5-4. Water-filled temporary barriers deployed and anchored in 

place. Installation designed for a 3-tiered placement, protecting to 

approximately 7 feet in depth. 

(Source: FloodMaster Barriers, Inc.) 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 5-3 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

Figure 5-5. Metal supports for floodwall installed for deployment. Floodwall deployed with 

impermeable membrane. 

(Source: FloodMaster Barriers, Inc.) 

These products are designed so that they can be utilized numerous times. Additionally, a joint 

program between the Federal Government and an internationally recognized certification 

laboratory will begin in the fall of 2006 to test and certify temporary, emergency measures for 

flood protection products. 

5.2 Technical Considerations 

5.2.1 Height of Barrier 

When barriers are built to protect a single structure, they are referred to as “residential,” 

“individual,” “on-site,” or “local” levees and floodwalls. The practical, cost-effective heights of 

these levees and floodwalls are usually limited to 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively. These limits are 

the result of the following considerations: 

	 The higher the levee or floodwall, the greater the depth of water that builds behind it and 

the greater the water pressure exerted on the barrier. Levees and floodwalls must be 

designed and constructed to withstand the increased pressures. Meeting this need for 

additional strength greatly increases the cost of the levee or floodwall, usually beyond 

what an individual property owner can afford. 

	 Because taller levees and floodwalls must be stronger, they must also be more massive, 

so they usually require more space than is likely to be available on an individual lot. This 

is especially true of levees. 

	 Local zoning and building codes may also restrict use, size, and location. 

If the flood depth at the project site is above the practical height limits, an alternative mitigation 

method, such as elevation, should be considered. The levee or floodwall can always be 

overtopped by a flood higher than expected regardless of the height of the barrier. Overtopping is 

a greater concern for a levee than a floodwall since a small amount of overtopping can cause 

erosion at the top of the levee and cause it to fail. 

5-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

5.2.2 Structure with Basement Foundation 

Special design considerations are necessary when levees or floodwalls are built to protect a 

structure with a basement. Even though the surface water is kept from coming into contact with 

the structure, the soil below the levee or floodwall and around the structure can become 

saturated, especially during floods of long duration. The resulting pressure on basement walls 

and floors can cause them to crack, buckle, or even collapse. An analysis by a qualified soils 

engineer can help locate a floodwall or barrier a sufficient distance from the structure to lessen or 

alleviate this pressure. 

5.2.3 Soil Conditions 

The type of soils encountered may have a significant impact on the choice of barriers as a flood 

protection option. This is true regardless of whether the choice is a permanent barrier or a 

temporary barrier. The following soil-related considerations must be taken into account: 

	 Bearing capacity. All of the permanent barriers and many of the temporary barriers are 

very heavy. If the soil is of the type that has low bearing capacity characteristics, the 

barrier may either fail structurally or begin to sink, losing its design protection height. 

	 Permeability. Barriers will ideally be deployed on tight, impermeable soils. If the soils 

are permeable, such as sand or sandy loam, geotechnical steps will need to be taken to 

counteract the seepage of water under or through the barriers. This may include an 

impervious core to a levee or a deeper cut-off trench filled with impermeable clay soil. 

5.2.4 Duration of Flooding 

Eventually, all barriers will have seepage or leakage through the barrier if they are exposed to 

floodwaters for an extended period of time. If the duration of flooding is relatively short (less 

than 1 day) and depth of flooding is relatively low (less than 1 foot), many barriers will at least 

slow down the effects of inundation. Longer exposure will require barriers that are better 

engineered and more carefully constructed or deployed. Likewise, deeper flood depths will also 

need to be considered due to the extremely high forces exerted on the barriers by the weight of 

the floodwaters. 

5.3 Relative Costs 

The relative cost ranking is based on the combination of the estimated costs for the barrier 

project and a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

5.3.1 Estimated Cost 

The costs for a barrier project, such as floodwalls and levees, are generally inexpensive. The 

costs for levee construction can vary greatly, depending on the distance between the construction 

site and the source of the fill dirt used to build the levee. The greater the distance that fill dirt 

must be hauled, the greater the cost. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 5-5 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

Examples of cost estimating items that may need to be considered include the following: 

 Field investigation to collect data and to develop a plan of action 

 Design of the barrier 

 Design of the drainage systems 

 Design for architecture details 

 Construction 

To estimate the relative cost of a barrier project, examples of general cost estimates have been 

provided below and are included in FEMA 312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to 

Protect Your House From Flooding and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of 

Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. 

The figures in Table 5-2 are example cost estimate numbers developed for a study for the St. 

Louis Metropolitan Sewer District. These numbers were generated using the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ publication, Flood Proofing - How to Evaluate Your Options, and updated to 2002 

and adjusted for the St. Louis area. It is important to note that the cost estimate numbers are 

location and time dependent. 

Table 5-2. General Estimates of the Unit Costs for Typical Barrier 

Projects 

Levee/Berm 

2 feet above ground 

4 feet above ground 

6 feet above ground 

$60/linear foot 

$106/ linear foot 

$170/ linear foot 

Floodwalls 

2 feet above ground 

4 feet above ground 

6 feet above ground 

$92/linear foot 

$140/linear foot 

$195/linear foot 

Appendix C, Cost Estimating, provides guidance and references for conducting a more detailed 

cost estimate. Additional cost estimates can be obtained from R.S. Means’ Contractor’s Pricing 

Guide. A blank preliminary cost estimating worksheet (Worksheet D) is provided in 

Appendix B. 

5.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness 

A component of the relative cost scoring is to include a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

Table D-1 in Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness, provides a quick screening for the 

cost-effectiveness of a project. The attributes included in the table are frequency of flood, level 

of damage, project cost, project benefits, and criticality (impact or loss of function). For 

5-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

example, if the frequency is the 10-year flood, the project will have a very high likelihood of 

cost-effectiveness. 

Based on the combination of the estimated cost of the project and the likelihood of costeffectiveness, a relative cost ranking will be assigned on Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation 

Measures. If the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is low, the ranking of relative cost will be either 

moderate or high, based on the estimated cost of the project. However, if the estimated cost is 

low and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is very high or high, the relative cost ranking will be 

low. 

5.4 Additional Considerations 

5.4.1 Human Intervention 

As described in Section 5.4.4, openings in the barrier will need to be closed prior to a flood 

event. Putting the closure mechanisms in place require human intervention. The barrier will not 

protect the structure from flooding unless the property owner is willing and able to operate all 

closures before the floodwaters arrive. 

5.4.2 Annual Maintenance 

A barrier requires periodic inspections and maintenance to address any necessary repairs. 

Otherwise, small problems, such as cracks, loss of vegetation, and erosion and scour, can quickly 

become large problems during a flood event. The barrier should be inspected at a minimum each 

spring and fall, before each impending flood, and after each flood event. To facilitate 

maintenance and the mowing of grass, the side slopes of most berms should not be steeper than 

1-foot vertically to 4-feet horizontally. A driveway should probably not be steeper than a 1 to 3 

slope. Trees and large shrubs should not be located on barriers. When they die, their roots decay, 

leaving routes for water to pass through, causing the barrier to fail. 

5.4.3 Housing of Occupants 

Although the building can be used during construction of the barrier, the building should not be 

occupied during a flood event. Levees and floodwalls may give the property owner a false sense 

of security. Every flood is different and the one that exceeds the height of the barrier could occur 

at any time. If water overtops the barrier, the protected area will fill rapidly and evacuation 

should occur well before this happens. 

5.4.4 Access to Structure 

Access to the structure may be difficult. Openings will need to be created or provided for 

driveways, sidewalks, and other entrances. These openings must be closed prior to the flood 

event occurring, as floodwaters can rise rapidly enough to prevent an opening from being closed. 

Examples of these closure mechanisms for floodwalls include shields similar to the ones used in 

dry floodproofing or prefabricated panels and permanently mounted, hinged, or sliding flood 

gates and prefabricated stop logs or panels for levee openings. Unless the gates remain in the 

closed position at all times, human intervention is required to close an entry point to prevent 

rising floodwaters from entering the structure (Figure 5-6). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 5-7 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

Figure 5-6. The City of Boulder, Colorado, installed a “pop up” 

closure to this floodwall at a City office building subject to flash 

floods. The closure floats up into place automatically when the site is 

flooded. 

5.4.5 Interior Drainage 

Interior drainage must be taken into account and provided for since building a barrier that keeps 

floodwater out of the protected area also will keep water in. Drains and sump pumps should be 

installed to remove water collected inside the barrier. In addition, caution must be taken to 

ensure that local drainage patterns in the area are not disrupted. As shown in Figure 5-7, an 

interior drainage system, including a sump pump, must be installed in the area protected by a 

levee or floodwall. 

Figure 5-7. Small patio floodwall with sump pump 

5-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

5.5 Available Resources 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapters VI-F, Floodwalls and VI-L: Levees. 

FEMA 312. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding. 

See Chapter 3, An Overview of the Retrofitting Methods and Chapter 7, Other Methods – Levees 

and Floodwalls. 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 10, Retrofitting. 

The Louisiana State University (LSU) Extension Center website 

(http://www.louisianafloods.org) lists many retrofitting publications, provides advice on 

floodproofing methods and flood insurance, and links to online shopping for retrofitting products 

and contractors. 

USACE. Flood Proofing - How to Evaluate Your Options. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 5-9 
Chapter 5− Barriers 

This page left intentionally blank. 

5-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 6-1 

CHAPTER 6 – WET FLOODPROOFING 

6.1 Introduction 

Wet floodproofing a structure consists of modifying 

the uninhabited portions (such as a crawlspace or an 

unfinished basement) to allow floodwaters to enter 

and exit (Figure 6-1). This ensures equal hydrostatic 

pressure on the interior and exterior of the structure 

and its supports. Equalized pressures will reduce the 

likelihood of wall failures and structural damage. 

However, wet floodproofing is practical in only a 

limited number of situations. Table 6-1 includes a 

summary of the advantages and disadvantages in 

using wet floodproofing. 

Figure 6-1. Wet floodproofed basement 

Wet floodproofing does not reduce flood 

insurance premium rates on residential 

structures. Premium rates can only be reduced 

through elevation of the residential structure 

above the Base Flood Elevation. Nonresidential structures can reduce flood 

insurance premium rates through other forms of 

floodproofing. 

CAUTION
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

Table 6-1. Considerations for Using Wet Floodproofing 

Advantages Disadvantages 

 Wet floodproofing measures are  May be used to bring a substantially damaged or substantially 

often less costly than other improved structure into compliance with the community’s 

mitigation measures. floodplain management ordinance or law only if the enclosed 

areas of the structure below the BFE are above grade on at least  Allows internal and external one side and used solely for parking, storage, or building access. hydrostatic pressures to equalize, (When in communities that allow buildings constructed on below lessening the loads on walls and grade crawlspaces, see FEMA Technical Bulletin 11-01, floors. Crawlspace Construction for Buildings Located in Special Flood 

Hazard Areas.) 

 Extensive cleanup may be necessary if the structure becomes wet 

inside and possibly contaminated by sewage, chemicals, and other 

materials borne by floodwaters. 

 Pumping floodwaters out of a basement too soon after a flood 

may lead to structural damage. 

 Periodic maintenance may be required. 

 Does not minimize the potential damage from high-velocity flood 

flow and wave action. 

6.2 Technical Considerations 

6.2.1 Construction Materials 

Because wet floodproofing allows floodwaters to 

enter the structure, all construction and finishing 

materials that may be under water must be resistant 

to flood damage. For this reason, wet floodproofing 

is practical only for non-living spaces, such as a 

basement as defined by NFIP regulations, a 

walkout-on-grade basement, crawlspace, or garage. 

Wet floodproofing is not practical for most slab-ongrade structures that have the living space at or near 

ground level. Whether or not wet floodproofing is 

appropriate depends on the flood conditions, the design and construction of the structure, and 

whether the structure has been substantially damaged or is being substantially improved. However, 

many industrial or commercial structures could benefit greatly from wet floodproofing techniques. 

Flood-Resistant Construction Materials. As 

found during the inspection of structures in New 

Orleans, LA, following Hurricane Katrina (2005), 

construction materials were subjected to 

deterioration and mold because of the extreme 

heat and humidity from the long-term moisture 

conditions. 

6.2.2 Basement Areas (as defined by NFIP regulations) 

Wet floodproofing is appropriate if all valuable contents have been or can readily be relocated to a 

flood-free space above the flood protection level and hydrostatic vent openings have been installed. 

If basement utilities cannot be relocated to a higher level, they can be protected by being placed in a 

watertight room or enclosure made of impermeable material such as concrete (Figure 6-2). 

6-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

Figure 6-2. Small floodwall constructed to protect a furnace 

and hot water heater. A gate is installed for access. 

(Source: FEMA 259) 

The Site Observations tab in the NT provides a check box to mark whether the structure has a 

basement (Figure 6-3). 

Figure 6-3. Site Observations tab - Basement 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 6-3 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

6.2.3 Duration of Flooding 

If the duration of the flood is longer than 1 day, wet floodproofing is not a reasonable approach to 

protecting a structure. As was evident following the flooding along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane 

Katrina in 2005, long periods of inundation and wet conditions led to damage to some of the 

structural components of buildings and extreme damage to the contents. The structural integrity of 

some building components was affected by long exposure to floodwaters and the very high 

moisture content of the atmosphere within the buildings led to conditions very favorable to the 

growth of mold and mildew. Wooden structural members began to warp and lose their ability to act 

as the design was intended. Plywood began to delaminate and chip board or fiber board began to 

deteriorate. The sooner the floodwaters were removed from the buildings and the sooner they were 

dried, the less damage that was experienced. 

6.2.4 Location of Utilities 

Any electrical outlets should be relocated or elevated to 

higher areas on the wall above the flood protection 

elevation, as there is a danger of not being unable to shut 

off the electrical panel before the basement floods. 

Relocation of utilities also includes the electrical service 

panel and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

(HVAC) ductwork. If ductwork becomes inundated with floodwaters, the following 

can occur: 

Reference. For additional information, 

refer to FEMA 348, Protecting Building 

Utilities from Flood Damage. 

 The flooded ducts may be pulled from their supports after the floodwaters recede because of 

the increased weight of the water inside the ducts. 

 The receded floodwaters leave silt and contaminants in the ductwork that can become 

recirculated throughout the structure if the ducts are not removed and thoroughly cleaned. 

6.2.5 Non-Residential Structures, Garages, etc. 

Non-residential structures (particularly manufacturing warehouses or distribution centers) are suited 

for wet floodproofing. With multi-level structures, merchandise and contents can be moved to the 

upper floors above the flood protection level. The Site Observations tab of the NT provides an area 

to record the number of stories of the structure (Figure 6-4). 

6-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

Figure 6-4. Site Observations tab - No. of Stories 

In lieu of an upper story to relocate contents, tractor trailers can be used for storing and moving 

contents to a flood-free location. Rental companies that cater to the need for temporary storage are 

a quick solution for transient relocation and storage of commercial equipment/residential 

belongings. Relocation can be made easier if the machines have quick-disconnect fittings and are 

mounted in such a way as to facilitate lifting with forklifts. If physical relocation is not feasible, 

elevation is the next best option. For example, electrical motors, generators, heating/air 

conditioning units, and electric service panels are suited for elevation (Figure 6-5). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 6-5 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

Figure 6-5. Electrical utilities elevated for protection against flooding 

6.3 Relative Costs 

The relative cost ranking is based on the combination of the estimated costs for the wet 

floodproofing project and a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

6.3.1 Estimated Cost 

Wet floodproofing is generally less expensive than the other mitigation measures described in this 

manual. Any action undertaken to reduce the number of items that are exposed to flood damage is 

considered a wet floodproofing measure. 

Examples of cost estimating items that may need to be considered include the following: 

 Design 

 Construction 

 Relocation of utility systems (electrical, HVAC, fuel supply and storage, water and sewer) 

that may be flooded. 

To estimate the relative cost of a wet floodproofing project, examples of general cost estimates are 

included in FEMA 312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House From 

Flooding and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone 

Residential Structures. 

Appendix C, Cost Estimating, provides guidance and references for conducting a more detailed cost 

estimate. Additional cost estimates can be obtained from R.S. Means’ Contractor’s Pricing Guide. 

A blank preliminary cost estimating worksheet (Worksheet D) is provided in Appendix B. 

6-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

6.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness 

A component of the relative cost scoring is to include a determination of cost-effectiveness. Table 

D-1 in Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness, provides a quick screening tool for the costeffectiveness of a project. The attributes included in the table are frequency of flood, level of 

damage, project cost, project benefits, and criticality (impact or loss of function). For example, if 

the frequency is the 10-year flood, the project will have a very high likelihood of cost-effectiveness. 

Based on the combination of the estimated cost of the project and the likelihood of costeffectiveness, a relative cost ranking will be assigned on Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation 

Measures. If the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is low, the ranking of relative cost will be either 

moderate or high, based on the estimated cost of the project. However, if the estimated cost is low 

and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is very high or high, the relative cost ranking will be low. 

6.4 Additional Considerations 

6.4.1 Human Intervention 

In most cases, human intervention is required to implement a wet floodproofing project. To reduce 

the level of human intervention, the interior finish can be changed to improve resistance to flood 

damage, gypsum wallboard can be removed, and impervious paints can be applied to the floors and 

walls. 

6.4.2 Annual Maintenance 

Annual maintenance is required after implementing a wet floodproofing mitigation measure. 

Several considerations to facilitate a successful maintenance schedule include: 

 Check the floodwater access vents/openings to ensure they are easily opened and 

unobstructed to allow floodwater to enter the structure as planned. 

 Check the condition of impervious painted surfaces. 

 Check the serviceability of pumps and pipes or hoses used for draining the structure. 

 Verify that electrical service panels have been relocated to an area above expected flooding. 

 Make any necessary repairs/replacement of damaged or worn components of the wet 

floodproofing system. 

 Check to ensure that any fuel tanks are securely strapped to the walls or set on concrete 

footings that are anchored to the floor and securely fastened. 

6.4.3 Substantial Improvement or Substantial Damage Requirements 

If wet floodproofing is used on a structure that is substantially improved or substantially damaged, 

the community’s floodplain management ordinance or law will not allow the property owner to 

have a basement, as defined under the NFIP. The NFIP regulations define a basement as “any area 

of the structure having its floor below subgrade on all sides.” If the structure has such a basement, it 

is required to be filled in as part of any wet floodproofing project (Figure 6-6). The NFIP definition 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 6-7 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

of basement does not include what is typically referred to as a “walkout” basement, whose floor 

would be at or above grade on at least one side (Figure 6-7). 

Figure 6-6. Wet floodproofing with a wet floodproofed subgrade basement 

(Source: FEMA 312) 

Figure 6-7. A structure with a wet floodproofed walkout-on-grade basement 

(Source: FEMA 312) 

Wet floodproofing is allowed to bring a substantially damaged or substantially improved structure 

into compliance with NFIP regulations in limited situations. Should a structure be substantially 

damaged or proposed to be substantially improved, it will need to meet all requirements of the 

NFIP and the local building code. Thus, a residential structure will normally be required to be 

constructed above the 100-year flood level and a non-residential structure either elevated or 

floodproofed to the 100-year level. 

6-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

A community’s floodplain management ordinance or law might restrict wet floodproofing to 

garages and enclosed areas below the BFE that are above grade on at least one side and used solely 

for parking, storage, or structure access (if the structure has been substantially damaged or is being 

substantially improved). For more information, refer to FEMA Technical Bulletin 7-93, Wet 

Floodproofing Requirements for Structures Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas and FEMA 

Technical Bulletin 11-01, Crawlspace Construction for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard 

Areas. 

6.4.4 Post-Flood Concerns 

These concerns revolve around emptying a flooded basement to prevent contaminating the structure 

and potable water: 

 Hydrostatic pressure. Water should not be pumped out of the basement area or enclosed 

crawlspace until the water outside has receded. Doing so will cause a pressure differential 

on the walls and could result in basement wall failure. 

 Well water testing. If the well and the area surrounding the well are submerged under the 

floodwaters, the well must be tested by a licensed sanitarian before any water can be 

disinfected and consumed. The sanitarian can advise the property owner on how to 

accomplish this or contract for the service. 

6.5 Available Resources 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapters VI-W, Wet Floodproofing. 

FEMA 312. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding. 

See Chapter 3, An Overview of the Retrofitting Methods and Chapter 6, Wet Floodproofing. 

FEMA 348. Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage. See Chapter 4, Existing Buildings. 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 10, Retrofitting. 

FEMA TB 7-93. Wet Floodproofing Requirements for Structures Located in Special Flood Hazard 

Areas. 

FEMA TB 11-01, Crawlspace Construction for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas 

The Louisiana State University (LSU) Extension Center website (http://www.louisianafloods.org) 

lists many retrofitting publications, provides advice on floodproofing methods and flood insurance, 

and links to online shopping for retrofitting products and contractors. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 6-9 
Chapter 6 − Wet Floodproofing 

This page left intentionally blank. 

6-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 7 − Dry Floodproofing 

CHAPTER 7 – DRY FLOODPROOFING 
 

7.1 Introduction 

A dry floodproofed structure is made watertight 

below the level that needs flood protection to prevent 

floodwaters from entering. Making the structure 

watertight requires sealing the walls with waterproof 

coatings, impermeable membranes, or a supplemental 

layer of masonry or concrete (Figure 7-1). 

Dry floodproofing may not be used to bring a 

substantially damaged or substantially 

improved residential structure into 

compliance with the community’s floodplain 

management ordinance or law. 

CAUTION 

Figure 7-1. A typical dry floodproofed structure 

(Source: FEMA 312) 

Table 7-1 includes a summary of advantages and disadvantages for using dry floodproofing as a 

mitigation measure. 

Table 7-1. Considerations for Using Dry Floodproofing 

Advantages Disadvantages 







Dry floodproofing is less costly than other 

retrofitting methods. 

Does not require the additional land that 

may be needed for levees and floodwalls. 

May be fundable under FEMA mitigation 

grant programs. 







May not be used to bring a substantially damaged 

or substantially improved residential structure into 

compliance with the community’s floodplain 

management ordinance or law. 

Dry floodproofing requires human intervention and 

adequate warning to install protective measures. 

Does not minimize the potential damage from 

high-velocity flood flow and wave action. 

 Ongoing maintenance is required. 

 Flood shields may not be aesthetically pleasing. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 7-1 
Chapter 7 - Dry Floodproofing 

Dry floodproofing a structure includes the following: 

	 Using waterproof membranes or other sealants to prevent water from entering the 

structure through the walls 

	 Installing watertight shields over windows and doors 

	 Installing measures to prevent sewer backup 

7.1.1 Waterproof Membranes 

Installing heavy plastic sheeting or waterproof membrane along a wall’s exterior surface is an 

effective means of waterproofing (Figure 7-2). The waterproof membrane can be installed 

relatively quickly; however, it does require human intervention. The membrane is unsightly and 

cannot remain in place indefinitely. Furthermore, the plastic will deteriorate with continued 

exposure to solar radiation. 

Figure 7-2. Photograph of membrane providing flood protection 

(Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 

7.1.2 Closures 

In conjunction with a waterproof membrane, openings in the walls need to be closed, either with 

temporary closures or permanently sealed shut (Figure 7-3). 

7-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 7 − Dry Floodproofing 

Figure 7-3. Permanently sealed opening 

(Source: FEMA 259) 

Low window openings at ground level can either have a pre-sized closure fitted over their 

surface or have a low wall constructed around the opening to a height above the flood protection 

elevation (Figure 7-4). 

Figure 7-4. Low wall construction 

Various closure systems can be manufactured to fit the individual openings, providing a way for 

it to be quickly closed and have a watertight seal. These types of closures can either be stored in 

a readily accessible location or permanently remain in place. Many of these closures have 

rubberized seals and other components that will require periodic care and maintenance 

(Figure 7-5). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 7-3 
Chapter 7 - Dry Floodproofing 

Figure 7-5. Small patio gate 

(Source: W.A. Wilson Consulting Services) 

7.1.3 Sewer Backup Protection 

Backup of sanitary sewers into a structure is a major concern due to the health hazards. Even 

after floodwaters have receded, contents and belongings that have been exposed to sewage are 

severely contaminated and can be nearly impossible to clean. The five main approaches to 

protect a structure against sewer backup are floor drain plugs, floor drain standpipes, overhead 

sewers, backup valves, and grinder pumps. For a detailed discussion of sewer backup protection, 

see FEMA 511, Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding, Chapter 10 (pages 10-9 to 10-11) 

and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures, Section VI-D. 

7.2 Technical Considerations 

The flood characteristics that affect the success of dry floodproofing are flood depth, flood 

duration, flow velocity, amount of warning time, and floodborne debris. 

7.2.1 Flood Depth 

The depth of the floodwaters affects the hydrostatic pressure that is exerted on walls and floors. 

Because water is prevented from entering a dry floodproofed structure, the exterior pressure on 

walls and floors is not counteracted from the opposite side as it is in a wet floodproofed 

structure. The ability of walls to withstand the hydrostatic pressures depends partly on how the 

walls are constructed: 

	 Typical masonry and masonry veneer walls, without reinforcement, can usually withstand 

the pressure exerted by water up to about 3 feet deep. 

	 In flood depths exceeding 3 feet, unreinforced masonry and masonry veneer walls are 

much more likely to crack or collapse. An advantage of masonry and masonry veneer 

7-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 7 − Dry Floodproofing 

walls is that their exterior surfaces are resistant to damage by moisture and can be made 

watertight relatively easily with sealants. 

	 Typical frame walls are likely to fail at lower flood depths, are more difficult to make 

watertight, and are more vulnerable to damage from moisture. 

7.2.2 Structures with Basements 

If a structure has a basement, the walls and floors must be specifically designed to resist 

hydrostatic pressure. Otherwise the risks associated with dry floodproofing a basement are high. 

Figure 7-6 illustrates how hydrostatic pressure operates on a structure during a flood. Structure 

“a” has no basement and the forces acting upon the structure are relatively small. However, for 

structure “b,” the forces are significantly greater due to the presence of a basement. 

Figure 7-6. Hydrostatic pressures on a structure 

(Source: FEMA 312) 

7.2.3 Flood Duration 

The longer a structure is exposed to floodwaters, the more likely it is that structural systems and 

floodproofing measures will begin to leak or fail. Most sealing systems will begin to allow some 

amount of seepage after prolonged periods of exposure to water. If the structure is in an area 

where high floodwaters can remain for days, a different retrofitting method should be used. 

7.2.4 Flow Velocity 

A seemingly “low” flow velocity of 1 or 2 feet per second can exert tremendous forces on a 

structure with only a few feet of flooding. Structures can be easily moved off of their 

foundations, which results in the total loss of the structure. Walls are easily damaged and subject 

to collapse by moving water. 

7.2.5 Warning Time 

Since dry floodproofing is often best suited for flooding conditions that last for a relatively short 

period of time, warning time and the time it takes to deploy the various components of a dry 

floodproofing system must be considered. Streams that are at flood levels for a short period of 

time generally reach flood levels quickly, thus the warning and preparation time is limited. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 7-5 
Chapter 7 - Dry Floodproofing 

Incorporating any type of flood warning system into the project design will enhance its ability to 

perform properly. 

7.2.6 Floodborne Debris 

The impact forces from debris in the moving water, such as trees, can compound the 

hydrodynamic forces of the moving floodwaters. 

7.3 Relative Costs 

The relative cost ranking is based on the combination of the estimated costs for the dry 

floodproofing project and a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

7.3.1 Estimated Cost 

Dry floodproofing a structure is generally an inexpensive mitigation measure. The costs for dry 

floodproofing a structure will depend on the following factors: the size of the structure, the 

height of the Flood Protection Elevation (FPE), types of sealant and shield materials used, 

number of plumbing lines that have to be protected by check valves, and number of openings 

that have to be covered by shields. 

Examples of cost estimating items that may need to be considered include the following: 

	 Analysis to determine the effective dry floodproofing method and design of the dry 

floodproofing method 

	 Dry floodproofing method selected, including: 

o	 Watertight shields for doors and windows 

o	 Reinforcing walls to withstand floodwater pressures and impact forces 

generated by floating debris 

o	 Drainage collection systems and sump pumps to control the interior water 

level, collect seepage, and reduce hydrostatic pressure on slab and walls 

o	 Membranes and/or other sealants to reduce seepage of floodwater through 

walls and wall penetrations 

o	 Anchoring the structure to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement 

	 Construction 

To estimate the relative cost of a dry floodproofing project, examples of general cost estimates 

have been provided below and are included in FEMA 312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: 

Six Ways To Protect Your House From Flooding and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and 

Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. 

The figures in Table 7-2 are example cost estimate numbers used in a study for the St. Louis 

Metropolitan Sewer District. These numbers were generated using the U.S. Army Corps of 

7-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 7 − Dry Floodproofing 

Engineers’ publication, Flood Proofing - How to Evaluate Your Options, and updated to 2002 

and adjusted for the St. Louis area. It is important to note that the cost estimate numbers are 

location and time dependent. 

Table 7-2. General Estimates of the Unit Costs for Typical Dry Floodproofing Projects 

Dry Floodproofing 

Waterproofing a concrete block or brick-faced wall by applying a polyethylene 

sheet or other impervious material and covering with a facing material such as 

brick. 

$3.50/square foot 

Acrylic latex wall coating $3.00/ square foot 

Caulking/sealant − a high performance electrometric “urethane” sealant is 

recommended. $2.50/linear foot 

Bentonite grout (below grade waterproofing, 6 feet deep) $20/linear foot 

Appendix C, Cost Estimating, provides guidance and references for conducting a more detailed 

cost estimate. Additional cost estimates can be obtained from R.S. Means’ Contractor’s Pricing 

Guide. A blank preliminary cost estimating worksheet (Worksheet D) is provided in 

Appendix B. 

7.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness 

A component of the relative cost scoring is to include a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

Table D-1 in Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness, provides a quick screening for the 

cost-effectiveness of a project. The attributes included in the table are frequency of flood, level 

of damage, project cost, project benefits, and criticality (impact or loss of function). For 

example, if the frequency is the 10-year flood, the project will have a very high likelihood of 

cost-effectiveness. 

Based on the combination of the estimated cost of the project and the likelihood of costeffectiveness, a relative cost ranking will be assigned on Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation 

Measures. If the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is low, the ranking of relative cost will be either 

moderate or high, based on the estimated cost of the project. However, if the estimated cost is 

low and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is very high or high, the relative cost ranking will be 

low. 

7.4 Additional Considerations 

Most floodproofing projects use more than one technique; this is especially true in dry 

floodproofing. A good dry floodproofing project can be enhanced through the use of small flood 

barriers or modifications to the structure’s foundation drainage system. The small flood barriers 

will move the floodwaters away from the structure, thereby reducing the forces exerted on the 

subsurface portions of the structure. Additional considerations for using dry floodproofing are 

human intervention, annual maintenance, non-residential buildings, and structures without 

basements. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 7-7 
Chapter 7 - Dry Floodproofing 

7.4.1 Human Intervention 

Property owners must be able to install all flood shields and physically perform the activities 

required for the successful operation of the dry floodproofing system before floodwaters arrive. 

7.4.2 Annual Maintenance 

The components must be inspected and maintained on a regular basis. Because dry floodproofing 

has window and door closures as part of the system, closures must be available and in good 

condition. Some considerations to facilitate a successful maintenance schedule are as follows: 

 Develop an inventory and location list of all flood shields and closures. 

 Develop an inspection plan to ensure flood shields and closures fit properly. 

 Check walls, floors, and floodproof coatings for cracks and potential leaks. 

7.5 Available Resources 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapters VI-D, Dry Floodproofing. 

FEMA 312. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding. 

See Chapter 3, An Overview of the Retrofitting Methods and Chapter 7, Other Methods – Dry 

Floodproofing. 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 10, Retrofitting. 

The Louisiana State University (LSU) Extension Center website 

(http://www.louisianafloods.org) lists many retrofitting publications, provides advice on 

floodproofing methods, and flood insurance and links to online shopping for retrofitting products 

and contractors. 

R.S. Means Contractor’s Pricing Guide. 

USACE. Flood Proofing - How to Evaluate Your Options. 

7-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 8 − Elevation 

CHAPTER 8 − ELEVATION 
 

8.1 Introduction 

Elevating a structure to prevent floodwaters from reaching living areas is an effective and one of 

the most common mitigation methods. The goal of the elevation process is to raise the lowest 

floor to or above the required level of protection. This can be done by elevating the entire 

structure, including the floor (Figures 8-1 and 8-2), or by leaving the structure in its existing 

position and constructing a new, elevated floor within it. 

Figure 8-1. Residence before elevation 

Figure 8-2. Residence shown in Figure 8-1 now elevated 5 feet 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 8-1 
Chapter 8 – Elevation 

Table 8-1 includes a summary of advantages and disadvantages for using elevation as a 

mitigation measure. 

Table 8-1. Considerations for Using Elevation 

Advantages Disadvantages 

 Elevating to or above the BFE allows a  Cost may be prohibitive. Additional costs are likely 

substantially damaged or substantially if the structure must be brought into compliance 

improved house to be brought into with current code requirements for plumbing, 

compliance with the community’s electrical, and energy systems. 

floodplain management ordinance or law.  The appearance of the structure and access to it 

 Often reduces flood insurance premiums. may be adversely affected. 

 Techniques are well-known, and qualified 

contractors are often readily available. 

 May be fundable under FEMA mitigation 

grant programs. 

For a detailed discussion of the techniques to elevate a structure, see FEMA 312, Homeowner’s 

Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House From Flooding, Chapter 5 or FEMA 259, 

Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures, Chapter 

VI-E. Additional references are included in Section 8.5, Available Resources. The three most 

common elevation techniques are: 

 Elevating on open foundations 

 Elevating on continuous foundation walls 

 Elevating by extending the walls or by moving the living space to an upper floor 

8.2 Technical Considerations 

8.2.1 Structure Type 

Concrete, masonry, or brick faced structures require special attention to ensure that the structure 

is not damaged during the elevation process. For a structure with wood-frame construction, with 

a brick veneer, the brick could be removed and then reapplied once the elevation process is 

complete. 

8.2.2 Foundation Type 

There are four main types of structure foundations. In order of increasing difficulty to elevate, 

they are: 

 Crawlspaces 

 Piers, Posts, Piles, Columns, and Shear Walls 

 Basements 

 Slabs-on-Grade 

8-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 8 − Elevation 

8.2.2.1 Crawlspaces. A building on this type of foundation is the easiest to work with on an 

elevation project. There is usually room for the contractor to move lifting beams under the 

building and to deploy the lifting jacks. The building is lifted to the desired height, the new 

foundation is constructed up to the correct elevation to bring the lowest floor to the flood 

protection level, and the building is then lowered onto the new foundation and connected. Once 

the utilities are reconnected, the residents may reoccupy the home or business. 

8.2.2.2 Piers, Posts, Piles, Columns, and Shear Walls. This type of construction is often 

found in buildings within a coastal floodplain, allowing floodwater to pass under the building 

and around the piles or posts. To elevate this type of construction, the building is often raised and 

moved to one side while new piles or posts are either poured or driven into the ground. The 

building is then moved back onto the site and lowered onto the new foundation supports. 

8.2.2.3 Basements. This type of construction can be difficult to work with on an elevation 

project because anytime NFIP regulations are employed to bring a residence into compliance, the 

existing basement will need to be abandoned and filled. The NFIP requires the lowest floor to be 

above the BFE: a pre-existing basement is considered the lowest floor, therefore the basement 

must be filled and new foundation footings and walls constructed to the proper flood protection 

elevation. The physical elevation of the building is also more difficult because the support 

structures for the lifting beams must be constructed outside of the basement’s footprint in order 

to begin the lifting process. 

8.2.2.4 Slabs-on-Grade. This type of construction is very difficult to elevate. Depending upon 

the slab construction (with or without stiffeners), support beams must be placed close together to 

ensure the slab is not broken. The area underneath the slab must be excavated to insert the lifting 

equipment and disconnect utilities. If the slab is not adquately reinforced with reinforcing steel, 

the slab may crack when lifted. This approach is discussed in detail in USACE’s Raising and 

Moving the Slab-on-Grade House with Slab Attached. 

The alternatives to excavating under the slab (e.g., cut openings in the walls for the lifting beams, 

detach the walls from the slab, and lift the building without the slab) require that a new floor is 

constructed on the elevated foundation, the building is placed upon the new floor, and the holes 

through the walls are repaired. 

8.2.3 Structure Size 

Large rambling structures, buildings constructed of extremely heavy materials, and multi-story 

structures require special attention before they are elevated. 

8.2.4 Utility Modifications 

All utilities must be disconnected before the structure is elevated and reconnected on its new 

foundation. Underground utilities need to be protected from the lifting equipment and site 

excavations. Some utilities that service a structure may need modification once the elevation 

project is complete. For instance, the electrical service mast may need to be relocated or raised 

after a structure is elevated to keep the wires off the roof of the structure or away from other 

hazards. FEMA 348, Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage, provides additional 

information on utility modifications. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 8-3 
Chapter 8 – Elevation 

8.2.5 Other Hazards 

Although elevating a structure can help protect it from floodwaters, other natural hazards need to 

be considered before choosing this method; in particular, earthquake, wind, and hydrostatic and 

hydrodynamic forces. For example, elevation causes a structure to become “top heavy” and, 

therefore, more susceptible to the overturning forces of earthquakes. Because the walls and roof 

of this structure are higher and more exposed, it can be more susceptible to wind forces. 

Likewise, both closed and open elevated foundations can fail as a result of damage caused by 

erosion and the impact of debris carried by floodwaters. If portions of the original foundation are 

used to support new walls, other foundation members, or a new second story, they must be 

capable of safely carrying the additional loads imposed by the new construction along with the 

expected flood, wind, and earthquake forces. Constructing or elevating a structure in accordance 

with applicable building codes will address most if not all of these issues. 

8.2.6 Vents 

For all elevation projects, vents in the enclosed areas below the BFE are required. Most building 

codes will require vents for air circulation; additionally, vents are needed to relieve hydrostatic 

pressure. FEMA’s Technical Bulletin 1-93 details the NFIP criteria for the placement of vents in 

the foundation walls. Although some building codes may be more stringent, the most common 

requirement is to provide 1 square inch of vent opening for every square foot of enclosed space. 

The bottom of the vents must be no higher than 1 foot above the outside grade (Figures 8-3 and 

8-4). Inside and outside ground elevations should be essentially equal and the vents must be 

installed in two or more walls. If the openings in the vents are covered with bars or screening to 

keep pests from entering the crawlspace, the cross-sectional area of the bars or screening must be 

deducted from the vent opening area. 

Figure 8-3. New foundation with vents 

(Source: W. A. Wilson Consulting Services) 

8-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 8 − Elevation 

Figure 8-4. New foundation with vents 

(Source: W. A. Wilson Consulting Services) 

8.3 Relative Costs 

The relative cost ranking is based on the combination of the estimated costs for the elevation 

project and a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

8.3.1 Estimated Cost ICC Coverage. The cost of elevating a 

The cost of elevating a structure is generally in the substantially damaged structure may be an 

middle range compared to the costs of implementing eligible flood insurance claim under Increased 

other mitigation measures. Basic costs for elevating Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage (see 

FEMA 301, NFIP’s Increased Cost of structures on open and closed foundations include Compliance Coverage Guidance for State and constructing a foundation, elevating utilities, and Local Officials, for additional information). adding or extending staircases. 

In some instances, slab-on-grade structures are raised without the slab attached. Although this 

method of elevation may be less expensive than raising the structure with the slab, it involves 

detaching the structure from the slab and requires alterations to the interior and exterior walls. 

Therefore, raising the structure without the slab is most often done when the structure has 

experienced substantial damage, yet remains structurally sound. 

The cost of elevating by extending walls and abandoning an existing lower level depends on 

whether the structure has an existing upper level that can be used for living space. If an upper 

level is available, abandoning the lower floor would involve primarily elevating or relocating 

utilities, adding openings in the lower-level walls, and ensuring that all construction materials are 

flood-resistant. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 8-5 
Chapter 8 – Elevation 

Examples of cost estimating items that may need to be considered include the following: 

	 Preparation of the structure for elevation 

	 Elevation of the structure, including cost of steel beams, jacks, etc. 

	 Construction of the new, elevated foundation 

	 Secure the structure to the new foundation 

	 Replacement or reconstruction of items removed from the structure prior to 
 

elevation 
 

To estimate the relative cost of a elevation project, examples of general cost estimates have been 

provided below and are included in FEMA 312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways 

To Protect Your House From Flooding and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of 

Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. 

The figures in Table 8-2 are example cost estimate numbers used in a study for the St. Louis 

Metropolitan Sewer District. These numbers were generated using the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ publication, Flood Proofing - How to Evaluate Your Options, and updated to 2002 

and adjusted for the St. Louis area. It is important to note that the cost estimate numbers are 

location and time dependent. 

Table 8-2. General Estimates of the Unit Costs for Typical Elevation 

Projects 

Elevation 

Wood-frame building on piles, posts, or 

columns 

$36/square foot 

Wood frame on concrete or block foundation 

walls 

$32/square foot 

Brick walls $43/square foot 

Slab-on-grade $45/square foot 

Appendix C, Cost Estimating, provides guidance and references for conducting a more detailed 

cost estimate. Additional cost estimates can be obtained from R.S. Means’ Contractor’s Pricing 

Guide. A blank preliminary cost estimating worksheet (Worksheet D) is provided in 

Appendix B. 

8.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness 

A component of the relative cost scoring is to include a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

Table D-1 in Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness, provides a quick screening for the 

cost-effectiveness of a project. The attributes included in the table are frequency of flood, level 

of damage, project cost, project benefits, and criticality (impact or loss of function). For 

example, if the frequency is the 10-year flood, the project will have a very high likelihood of 

cost-effectiveness. 

8-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 8 − Elevation 

Based on the combination of the estimated cost of the project and the likelihood of costeffectiveness, a relative cost ranking will be assigned on Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation 

Measures. If the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is low, the ranking of relative cost will be either 

moderate or high, based on the estimated cost of the project. However, if the estimated cost is 

low and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is very high or high, the relative cost ranking will be 

low. 

8.4 Additional Considerations 

8.4.1 Substantial Damage/Improvement 

If the structure being elevated has been substantially damaged or is being substantially improved, 

the local floodplain management ordinance or law will generally restrict the structure from 

having a basement (as defined under the NFIP) if the structure is located within the mapped 100-

year floodplain. For areas removed from the SFHA by the placement of fill, see FEMA 

Technical Bulletin 10-01, Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood 

Hazard Areas are Reasonably Safe from Flooding. 

The NFIP regulations define a basement as “any area of the building having its floor sub-grade 

on all sides.” If the structure has a basement, it must be filled in as part of any elevation project. 

The NFIP definition of basement does not include what is typically referred to as a “walkout-ongrade” basement, whose floor would be at or above grade on at least one side. Additional 

information on substantial damage requirements is included in FEMA 213, Answers to Questions 

About Substantially Damaged Buildings. 

FEMA Technical Bulletin 11-01, Crawlspace Construction for Buildings Located in Special 

Flood Hazard Areas, provides guidance on crawlspace construction and supports a policy 

decision to permit crawlspaces to be built up to 2 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade 

(LAG), provided that other considerations are met. Previously, these below grade crawlspaces 

were considered basements under NFIP regulations. 

8.4.2 Access to the Structure by the Lifting Crew 

Elevating a structure requires specialized heavy equipment and materials, ranging from large 

front-end loaders to long steel beams. Therefore, there must be enough room on the site from 

obstructions such as trees, adjacent structures, and utilities. The proximity of adjacent neighbors 

may also require obtaining agreements or temporary easements from them. Any repairs from 

damage to their property must be covered in a pre-construction agreement and completed 

promptly. The Flood Risk and Mitigation Possibilities tab in NT provides a check box to indicate 

whether adequate clearance exists at the site (Figure 8-5). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 8-7 
Chapter 8 – Elevation 

Figure 8-5. Flood Risk and Mitigation Possibilities tab - Adequate Clearance 

8.4.3 Access to the Structure Following Elevation 

An elevated structure is harder to access due to the height. If the structure is a residence, the age 

and physical condition of the occupants must be taken into consideration. Ramps, stairs and 

elevators can been used for entryways on many elevated residences (Figure 8-6). Refer to the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and FEMA Technical Bulletin 4-93, Elevator 

Installation for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas in Accordance with the 

National Flood Insurance Program, for additional information. 

8-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 8 − Elevation 

Figure 8-6. Elevator provides access to elevated structure 

8.4.4 Codes and Ordinances 

The local building code and the community’s floodplain ordinance must be followed. The 

Additional Site Information tab should list any pertinent regulatory requirements or standards 

(Figure 8-7): 

 Floodplain location requirements 

 Local and state permits 

 Design wind speeds and seismic loadings 

 Snow loads 

 Frost depths 

 Height restrictions 

 Restrictions on size or types of foundations 

 Lowest floor requirements 

 Heat duct elevation requirements 

 Foundation venting requirements 

 ADA requirements 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 8-9 
Chapter 8 – Elevation 

Figure 8-7. Additional Site Information tab - Regulatory Requirements 

8.4.5 Historic Preservation 

Structures placed on or designated as eligible for the National Register of Historic Buildings 

have historic value to the nation and are protected by legislation. As such, structural 

modifications to them, even for the purpose of protecting them from flooding, may be limted or 

not allowed. This is particularly true for changes that affect the exterior of the structure. Many 

communities have local historic preservation commissions and State Historic Preservation 

Officers (SHPOs) that can identify historic buildings and historic districts or neighborhoods (see 

Appendix G for a list of SHPOs). 

8.4.6 Housing of Occupants 

During the elevation process, the occupants of a residential structure will need to be temporarily 

relocated. Most elevation projects will result in the residents being relocated for 1 to 3 months. 

8.4.7 Aesthetics 

The visual aspect of an elevated structure is vitally important to both the property owner and the 

neighborhood, especially for residential structures. If the proposed project is perceived to be an 

“eyesore,” it can be difficult to convince the property owners to proceed with the project, despite 

being protected from flooding. Additionally, a neighborhood eyesore can lead to criticism of the 

project itself and possible non-participation in future mitigation initiatives. Small cosmetic 

changes can greatly improve the looks of an elevated structure, such as: 

8-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 8 − Elevation 

	 Landscaping and shrubbery 

	 Fill placed along the foundation wall, giving the appearance of the structure being located 

on a small knoll 

	 Extending siding down over the foundation walls 

Figures 8-8 and 8-9 illustrate the contrast between a structure without cosmetic improvements 

and a structure with improvements. 

Figure 8-8. House elevated 8 feet, but lacking landscaping, producing 

a stark look 

Figure 8-9. House elevated over 5 feet with retaining wall, porch, and 

landscaping 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 8-11 
Chapter 8 – Elevation 

8.5 Available Resources 

FEMA 85. Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard Foundation and 

Installation Guide. See Chapter 8, Methods for Mitigating Flood Hazards 8.1 Elevation 

FEMA 213. Answers to Questions About Substantially Damaged Buildings. 
 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 
 

Structures. See Chapter VI-E, Elevation. 
 

FEMA 301, NFIP’s Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage Guidance for State and Local 

Officials. 
 

FEMA 312. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding. 
 

See Chapter 3, An Overview of the Retrofitting Methods and Chapter 5, Elevating Your House. 
 

FEMA 347. Above the Flood: Elevating Your Floodprone House. 
 

FEMA 348. Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage. See Chapter 4, Existing 
 

Buildings. 
 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 10, Retrofitting. 
 

FEMA Technical Bulletin 1-93. Openings in Foundation Walls for Buildings Located in Special 
 

Flood Hazard Areas. 
 

FEMA Technical Bulletin 4-93. Elevator Installation for Buildings Located in Special Flood 
 

Hazard Areas in Accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. 
 

FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 Ensuring that Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood 
 

Hazard Areas are Reasonably Safe from Flooding.
 

FEMA Technical Bulletin 11-01. Crawlspace Construction for Buildings Located in Special 
 

Flood Hazard Areas: National Flood Insurance Program Interim Guidance. 
 

The Louisiana State University (LSU) Extension Center website 
 

(http://www.louisianafloods.org) lists many retrofitting publications, provides advice on 

floodproofing methods and flood insurance, and links to online shopping for retrofitting products 

and contractors. 

USACE. Flood Proofing - How to Evaluate Your Options. 

USACE. Raising and Moving the Slab-on-Grade House with Slab Attached. 

R.S. Means’. Contractor’s Pricing Guide. 

8-12 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 9 - Relocation 

CHAPTER 9 − RELOCATION 

9.1 Introduction 

Relocation involves lifting and placing a structure on a wheeled vehicle to transport it to the new 

site outside the SFHA (Figure 9-1). This method is one of the most effective mitigation 

measures. If space permits, it may be possible to move the structure to another location on the 

same piece of property. 

Figure 9-1. Structure placed on a wheeled vehicle for relocation to a 

new site 

Relocation is most appropriate in areas where the flood conditions are characterized by one or 

more of the following: 

• Deep water 

• Short warning time (flash flooding) 

• High flow velocity 

• Wave action 

• Significant quantity of debris in floodwaters 

Table 9-1 includes a summary of advantages and disadvantages for using relocation as a 

mitigation measure. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 9-1 
Chapter 9 - Relocation 

Table 9-1. Considerations for Using Relocation 

Advantages Disadvantages 

	 Removes flood problem since the structure is 

relocated out of the floodprone area. 
 

improved structure to be brought into 

 Allows a substantially damaged or substantially 

compliance with a community’s floodplain 

management ordinance. 
 

	 May be fundable under FEMA mitigation grant 

programs. 

 Cost may be prohibitive. 
 

	 Additional costs are likely if the structure 

must be brought into compliance with current 

code requirements for plumbing, electrical, 

and energy systems. 
 

For a detailed discussion of the relocation process, see FEMA 312, Homeowner’s Guide to 

Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House From Flooding, Chapter 7 or FEMA 259, 

Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures, Chapter 

VI-R. Additional references are included in Section 9.5, Available Resources. 

9.2 Technical Considerations 

Technical considerations for a relocation project include structure type, condition, and size. 

9.2.1 Structure Type 

Structures that are easiest to elevate, such as a single-story wood-frame structure over a 

crawlspace or basement foundation with a simple rectangular shape, are also the easiest to 

relocate. Concrete, masonry, or brick faced structures require special attention to ensure that the 

structure is not damaged during the process. For a structure with wood-frame construction, with 

a brick veneer, the brick could be removed and then reapplied once the relocation process is 

complete. 

9.2.2 Structure Condition 

Structures best suited for relocation are those in good condition. All structural members and their 

connections must be able to withstand the stresses imposed when the structure is lifted and 

moved. A structure that is in poor condition, especially one that has been damaged by repeated or 

severe flooding, may need so much structural repair and bracing that relocation would not be 

practical. 

Prior to beginning, a thorough analysis of both the existing site and structure and the new site 

must be made. The examination of the structure should be done by a licensed structural engineer, 

with particular attention given to the building’s floor support system (i.e., joists, plates, and 

flooring) to ensure that it will remain intact. If these components are not in good structural 

condition, the structure may not be a good candidate for relocation. 

9-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 9 - Relocation 

9.2.3 Structure Size 

Large rambling structures, buildings constructed of extremely heavy materials, and multi-story 

structures require special attention before they are relocated. 

9.3 Relative Costs 

The relative cost ranking is based on the combination of the estimated costs for the relocation 

project and a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

9.3.1 Estimated Cost 

Relocation is a relatively expensive mitigation measure. In order to determine the estimated cost 

of a relocation project, contact one or more house movers. Provide basic data on the structure, 

such as wall and foundation type and size, and information on the distance to the new site. The 

movers should be able to provide a general cost estimate. 

Examples of cost estimating items that may need to be considered include the following: 

•	 Analysis of existing site and structure 

•	 Site selection and analysis and design of the new location (i.e., adequacy of the new 

location for the structure, utility connections, permits, etc.) 

•	 Analysis and preparation of the moving route, including items such as the width of the 

road, obtaining approval and permits, and route preparation 

•	 Preparation of the structure prior to the move, such as disconnecting utilities, preparing 

the structure for the lift, and separating the structure from its foundation 

•	 Moving the structure to the new location 

•	 Preparation of the new site 

•	 Construction of the foundation at the new location 

•	 Connection of the structure to the new foundation 

•	 Restoration of the old site 

To estimate the relative cost of a relocation project, examples of general cost estimates are 

included in FEMA 312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House 

From Flooding and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting 

Floodprone Residential Structures. 

Appendix C, Cost Estimating, provides guidance and references for conducting a more detailed 

cost estimate. Additional cost estimates can be obtained from R.S. Means’ Contractor’s Pricing 

Guide. A blank preliminary cost estimating worksheet (Worksheet D) is provided in 

Appendix B. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 9-3 
Chapter 9 - Relocation 

9.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness 

A component of the relative cost scoring is to include a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

Table D-1 in Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness, provides a quick screening for the 

cost-effectiveness of a project. The attributes included in the table are frequency of flood, level 

of damage, project cost, project benefits, and criticality (impact or loss of function). For 

example, if the frequency is the 10-year flood, the project will have a very high likelihood of 

cost-effectiveness. 

Based on the combination of the estimated cost of the project and the likelihood of costeffectiveness, a relative cost ranking will be assigned on Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation 

Measures. If the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is low, the ranking of relative cost will be either 

moderate or high, based on the estimated cost of the project. However, if the estimated cost is 

low and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is very high or high, the relative cost ranking will be 

low. 

9.4 Additional Considerations 

9.4.1 Annual Maintenance 

The ownership of the original site may be transferred to the local community, which then has the 

maintenance and security responsibilities associated with the vacated site. If several relocation 

projects are undertaken within the same community, the result may create an undesirable 

patchwork of empty lots for the community to maintain. 

9.4.2 Moving a Structure Between the Old and New Sites 

Analysis and preparation of the moving route is accomplished by the contractor. Permits for a 

move and the new site will likely be required from the local government. If the move entails 

more than one community, a moving permit from each community will be required. On the day 

of the move, any obstructions need to be temporarily removed or positioned out of the way: 

power lines are either disconnected or simply lifted above the moving structure; fire hydrants 

close to the street may need to be disconnected and temporarily removed; and roads checked for 

possible obstructions to the passage of the structure. Narrow roads, restrictive load capacities on 

roads and bridges, and low clearances under bridges and power lines can make it necessary to 

find an alternative route. When no practical alternatives are available, the moving contractor may 

have to cut the structure into sections, move them separately, and reassemble the structure at the 

new site. 

9.4.3 Access to Site 

The Adequate Clearance box in the Flood Risk and Mitigation Possibilities tab in NT indicates 

whether there is sufficient clearance to permit equipment access to the site (Figure 9-2). The box 

should be checked if the structure is clear by approximately 20 feet on each side. 

9-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 9 - Relocation 

Figure 9-2. Flood Risk and Mitigation Possibilities tab - Adequate Clearance 

9.4.4 Housing of Occupants 

Relocation is a disruptive mitigation method for the occupants of the structure. Before the 

structure can be lifted, all utility systems must be disconnected. The structure becomes 

uninhabitable at this point, and the property owner will not be able to move back in until the 

structure has been placed at the new site and all utility systems have been reconnected. Until 

then, the property owner will need to find temporary lodging and a place to store furniture and 

other belongings. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 9-5 
Chapter 9 - Relocation 

9.5 Available Resources 

FEMA 85. Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard Foundation and 

Installation Guide. See Chapter 8, Methods for Mitigating Flood Hazards 8.3 Relocation. 

FEMA 259. Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential 

Structures. See Chapter VI-R, Relocation. 

FEMA 312. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding. 

See Chapter 3, An Overview of the Retrofitting Methods and Chapter 7, Other Methods - 

Relocation. 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 9, Redevelopment. 

The Louisiana State University (LSU) Extension Center website 

(http://www.louisianafloods.org) lists many retrofitting publications, provides advice on 

floodproofing methods and flood insurance, and links to online shopping for retrofitting products 

and contractors. 

R.S. Means’ Contractor’s Pricing Guide. 

9-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 10 − Acquisition 

CHAPTER 10 – ACQUISITION 

10.1 Introduction 

Acquiring and demolishing or simply demolishing a floodprone structure is the most successful 

means of ensuring that a structure will not accumulate additional losses from future flood events 

(Figure 10-1). There are two options for what to do with the site after the structure is gone: 

1. 	 The property site can be purchased by a government agency or appropriate organization 

that, after demolishing the structure, will keep the land in an open space use in perpetuity. 

2. 	 If the lot remains in private ownership after the building is demolished, a new structure can 

be built on the lot, provided it is constructed to meet all local building and flood protection 

code requirements. 

Figure 10-1. The Aldridge Creek Greenway in Huntsville, AL, is 

expanded as floodprone homes are acquired and cleared. 

(Source: FEMA 511) 

Table 10-1 includes a summary of advantages and disadvantages for using acquisition as a 

mitigation measure. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 10-1 
Chapter 10 − Acquisition 

10-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 

Table 10-1. Considerations for Using Acquisition 

10.2 Technical Considerations 

Property acquisition is a complex process. The 

procedures for property title transfer from a private 

owner to the government are detailed and extensive. 

Every precaution is made to protect the private 

property owner’s and renter’s rights and to ensure 

they are fully aware of all aspects of the transaction. 

The acquisition process involves the following: 

disconnect and cap utility lines, tear the structure 

down, remove debris, restore old site and building, or 

buying a new structure. First the utility company must 

turn off all services to the structure and the 

demolition contractor will then disconnect the utility 

lines. If another structure will not be built on the site, 

the contractor will cap the lines permanently or 

remove them according to the requirements of the 

utility company. The structure is then relocated, 

salvaged or demolished, and debris removed as 

required by Federal, State, and local regulations. Site 

restoration includes demolishing and removing any 

paved surfaces, grading the property, and stabilizing 

the site. 

10.3 Relative Costs 

The relative cost ranking is based on the combination of the estimated costs for the acquisition 

project and a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

Advantages Disadvantages 

• Permanently removes problem since the 

structure no longer exists. 

• Allows a substantially damaged or substantially 

improved structure to be brought into 

compliance with the community’s floodplain 

management ordinance or law. 

• Expands open space and enhances natural and 

beneficial uses. 

• May be fundable under FEMA mitigation grant 

programs. 

• Cost may be prohibitive. 

• Resistance may be encountered by local 

communities due to loss of tax base, 

maintenance of empty lots, and liability for 

injuries on empty, community-owned lots. 

Eligibility Requirements. In order for a 

community to qualify for FEMA grants for 

acquisition projects, three basic 

requirements must first be met: 

1. The local community must inform the 

property owners interested in the 

acquisition program that the community 

will not use its condemnation authority to 

purchase their property and that 

participation in the program is strictly 

voluntary. 

2. The subsequent deed to the property to 

be acquired will be amended such that 

the landowner will be restricted from 

receiving any further Federal disaster 

assistance grants, the property shall 

remain in open space in perpetuity, and 

the property will be retained in ownership 

by a public entity. 

3. Any replacement housing or relocated 

structures will be located outside of the 

100-year floodplain. 
Chapter 10 − Acquisition 

10.3.1 Estimated Cost 

Acquisition is a relatively expensive mitigation measure. The cost of tearing a structure down 

can vary widely, depending on the amount of debris, whether it must be hauled to a licensed 

disposal site, and if a dumping fee is required. The major costs associated with the acquisition 

method are for purchasing the structure and land. Examples of cost estimating items that may 

need to be considered include the following: 

 Purchase of structure and land 

 Demolition 

 Debris removal, which includes any landfill processing fees 

 Grading and stabilizing the property site 

 Permits and plan review 

10.3.2 Determination of Cost-Effectiveness 

A component of the relative cost scoring is to include a determination of cost-effectiveness. 

Table D-1 in Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness, provides a quick screening for the 

cost-effectiveness of a project. The attributes included in the table are frequency of flood, level 

of damage, project cost, project benefits, and criticality (impact or loss of function). For 

example, if the frequency is the 10-year flood, the project will have a very high likelihood of 

cost-effectiveness. Conversely, if the frequency is the 50 to 100-year flood, the likelihood of 

cost-effectiveness is low. 

Based on the combination of the estimated cost of the project and the likelihood of costeffectiveness, a relative cost ranking will be assigned on Worksheet B, Appropriate Mitigation 

Measures. If the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is low, the ranking of relative cost will be either 

moderate or high, based on the estimated cost of the project. However, if the estimated cost is 

low and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is very high or high, the relative cost ranking will be 

low. 

10.4 Additional Considerations 

10.4.1 Historic Preservation 

A community may not acquire, relocate or floodproof any structure prior to FEMA satisfying its 

compliance review required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Typically, 

the community must submit photographs of each property under consideration along with a 

description of the anticipated flood mitigation project. If FEMA determines, in consultation with 

the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), 

that the property is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(historic properties), FEMA must determine the effect of the proposed mitigation project on the 

identified property or properties. Historic properties include buildings, sites, structures, objects, 

and districts. If FEMA, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any other consulting parties, 

determine that the proposed project will adversely affect the historic property and properties, 

FEMA, the SHPO/THPO, and other consulting parties must agree on measures to avoid, 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 10-3 
Chapter 10 − Acquisition 

10-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 

alleviate, minimize, or otherwise compensate for the adverse effect(s). These treatment measures 

are outlined in either a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement. 

Early coordination between the applicant and the SHPO/THPO is helpful in understanding the 

historic significance of a particular area and avoiding potential adverse effects. A list of 

SHPOs/THPOs can be found through the National Park Service’s web page and is included in 

Appendix G. Keep in mind though that FEMA is still required to formally identify and evaluate 

historic properties as part of the Section 106 review process. In many States, FEMA has 

negotiated programmatic agreements with the SHPO and state emergency management agency 

to exclude routine activities from further review, accelerate time periods for consultation 

between FEMA and the SHPO, and provide for other procedures to minimize delays during 

disaster recovery. These agreements often are extended to cover flood mitigation projects that 

occur during non-disaster periods, particularly for repetitive loss and substantially damaged 

structures. For example, most agreements allow for the administrative action of property 

acquisition to proceed before Section 106 review is initiated. 

Properties identified as historic may be marked on the Address and Updates tab on the Limited 

View (Figure 10-2). An example of a historic structure is included in Figure 10-3. 

Figure 10-2. Address and Updates Tab - Historic Building Check 
Chapter 10 − Acquisition 

Figure 10-3. Historic Structure 

10.4.2 Hazardous Materials 

Existing owners must certify that the property is free of hazardous materials and contaminants or 

that the site has been cleaned to Federal standards. The sellers of any suspected 

agricultural/commercial properties must indemnify FEMA (if FEMA funding is involved), the 

State, and local governments from liability resulting from contamination of the site. If there is 

still suspicion regarding the acceptability of the site for the acquisition program, an 

environmental assessment may be required. Using FEMA funds to purchase contaminated 

properties is prohibited. 

A review of a property’s past uses must ensure that no hazardous materials are likely to be 

encountered. Research may need to be done to identify previous uses of the site as well. For 

example, a commercial site that is currently used as an office or retail space may have been used 

as a dry cleaner or screen printer shop, both of which are known for hazardous materials issues, 

especially when located in a floodprone area. 

The Site Observations tab indicates whether the structure is currently used for commercial or 

industrial purposes, where the presence of hazardous materials could be a concern (Figure 10-4, 

number 1). In addition, the Site Observations tab contains a checkbox to indicate if flooding at 

this site will have community-wide implications (Figure 10-4, numbers 2a and 2b), with 

“contains hazardous materials” as one of the choices if this is true. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 10-5 
Chapter 10 − Acquisition 

10-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 

Figure 10-4. Site Observations tab - Hazardous materials site indicators 

10.5 Available Resources 

FEMA 312. Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding. 

See Chapter 3, An Overview of the Retrofitting Methods and Chapter 7, Other Methods - 

Demolition. 

FEMA 317. Property Acquisition Handbook for Local Communities. 

FEMA 511. Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding. See Chapter 9, Redevelopment. 

The Louisiana State University (LSU) Extension Center website 

(http://www.louisianafloods.org) lists many retrofitting publications, provides advice on 

floodproofing methods and flood insurance, and links to online shopping for retrofitting products 

and contractors. 

2a 

1 2b 
Chapter 11 − Working with Property Owners 

CHAPTER 11 − WORKING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS 

11.1 Introduction 

The evaluation process in Chapter 3 outlined steps designed to identify some of the mitigation 

approaches appropriate for further consideration. This section provides recommendations on 

how to work with the property owners who will be affected by the proposed mitigation 

measures. 

11.2 Presenting Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

There are several options for how to present the results of the selection process to the property 

owners and other decision-makers. The options include: 

	 Package the results of the evaluation process (as described in Chapter 3) and meet with 

the property owners to discuss the process, the findings, and their preferences. The 

information provided in Chapters 4 through 10 for each mitigation measure may be used 

as a reference for any mitigation measures that were identified as appropriate during the 

evaluation process. 

	 Prepare a recommendation for a specific mitigation measure along with the appropriate 

justification. It is strongly recommended that all work is shown and copies of all the 

worksheets are provided to the property owners. 

The following documentation should be used to prepare for the initial meetings with the 

property owners: 

	 NT Basic Report 

	 Technical Considerations Scorecard (see Worksheet A) 

	 Appropriate Mitigation Measures (see Worksheet B) 

	 Initial Consultation with Property Owner (see Worksheet C) 

During the meeting, the following issues should be discussed between the State or local 

officials and the property owner: 

	 The property owner should be aware that there is no guarantee the project will be funded. 

	 The property owner should be aware of what the project will look like after completion. 

	 The property owner should be aware of their responsibilities concerning operations and 

maintenance and determine if they are capable of fulfilling them. 

	 Cost-sharing is an option. This issue is addressed in Appendix E, Hazard Mitigation 

Assistance Programs. 

At the end of the meeting, the State or local officials should have a preliminary idea of the 

property owners’ interest in any of the mitigation measures. There may be concerns that will 

need to be addressed. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 11-1 
NO PHOTO 

AVAILABL

Chapter 11 − Working with Property Owners 

Worksheet C: Initial Consultation with Property Owner 

Date Prepared: Consultation Date: 
 

Property Owner Name: 
 

Property Address: 
 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 

Prepared by: 

Instructions to complete Worksheet C: Initial Consultation with Property Owner 

1.	 Record recommended mitigation measures (mitigation measure(s) with lowest score from Worksheet B) and include any 

comments for the discussion with the property owner. 

2.	 Record property owner’s response to recommended mitigation measure(s). 

3.	 If an appropriate mitigation measure has been agreed upon, record it under “Property Owner Preferred Mitigation 

Measure(s)”. A detailed cost estimate and/or benefit/cost analysis will be necessary to ensure the preferred mitigation 

measure is appropriate. The cost analysis and additional required actions are recorded under “Action Items for Follow 

Up.” 

Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) 

 Drainage Improvements  Elevation 

 Barriers  Relocation 

 Dry Floodproofing  Acquisition 

 Wet Floodproofing 

Comments 

Response from Property Owner 

Property Owner Preferred Mitigation Measure(s) 

Action Items for Follow Up 

11-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 11 − Working with Property Owners 

11.3 Addressing Property Owner Concerns 

Not all property owners will accept the proposed measure that is presented to them, regardless 

of how the risk to natural hazards can be overcome. The results of the process in Worksheets A 

and B should be discussed with the property owner to explain how the decision was made to 

recommend a particular mitigation measure or measures. Typical property owner concerns are 

included in a report titled, Implementing Floodplain Land Acquisition Programs in Urban 

Localities. See Section 11.5 for information on accessing this report. 

11.3.1 Evaluation Process 

The concerns of the property owner regarding the proposed mitigation measure should be taken 

into consideration and addressed by using the following: 

	 Show all work. By demonstrating the decision-making process of how certain mitigation 

measures were eliminated from consideration, the property owner will be able to gain an 

understanding of the steps involved and the rationale used to select or eliminate from 

consideration a specific mitigation measure. 

	 Solicit feedback. The property owner can provide additional information that may be 

necessary to determine if alternative measures are more suitable for acceptance. 

	 Address concerns. The property owner may have an objection to a particular mitigation 

measure for a variety of reasons: cost, aesthetics, or displacement. Working closely with 

the property owner and demonstrating the range of options available allows the property 

owner to determine which of the remaining mitigation measures will best suit their 

needs. 

11.3.2 Property Owners’ Preference 

There are four main areas of concern that influence the property owner’s preference for a 

particular mitigation measure: 

	 How they will be affected by the mitigation project 

	 How secure they will be from future flood damage 

	 Their responsibilities to the project, including maintenance 

	 The appearance of the property 

Mitigation project concerns include: 

	 The cost of the project to the property owner 

	 Administration of the contract with the contractor 

	 Additions or modifications to the structure during the project 

	 Vacating the property during the project and for how long 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 11-3 
Chapter 11 − Working with Property Owners 

Security concerns include: 

 Degree of safety from flooding as a result of the mitigation project 

 Occupying the structure during a flood event 

It is important to convey to the property owner that only acquisition and demolition will 

provide total security from any future flood event. A project can fail if the flood exceeds the 

project’s design level, the owner did not adequately maintain the project, or the property owner 

did not properly implement the measure during a flood event (e.g., did not install a closure or 

was not home when the structure was flooded). Although the project is designed to reduce 

damage to the structure, the property owner will still need to take safety and health precautions 

during a flood. If the building is flooded, it should not be occupied, especially if the floodwater 

is deep or fast. 

The property owner’s responsibility concerns include project maintenance and how much the 

property owner can remodel the structure in the future. The property owner is ultimately 

responsible for the maintenance of the mitigation measures and needs to be aware that the 

project will only work if he or she assumes this responsibility. 

Appearance concerns are most often the issue that stalls many potential mitigation projects, 

particularly elevation. Property owners will regard any change to the appearance of their home 

with a very critical eye. If the property owner is subject to criticism (or perceives that they will 

be) since the project may be an eyesore, he or she will not be willing a participant in the 

floodproofing project. It would be beneficial to provide the property owner with before and 

after photographs of similar mitigation projects completed in an aesthetically pleasing manner. 

11.3.3 FEMA Buyout Study Findings 

There may be situations in which the only appropriate mitigation measure is an acquisition 

project. The property owner may not be receptive to this alternative. FEMA and the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) commissioned a study in 2003 to examine why property owners did 

or did not participate in an acquisition (also known as a buyout) program. The findings are 

included in the report, Implementing Floodplain Land Acquisition Programs in Urban 

Localities. 

According to the results in the buyout study, the key factors that influenced a homeowner’s 

decision to participate in a buyout program included the perception of risk, neighborhood 

attachment, and buyout factors, including timing, communication, trust, and pressure. 

Perception of risk. While the buyout staff defined “risk” in terms of the probability of future 

flooding, the residents and other agencies perceived risk as financial debt, affordable housing, 

and losing social networks. Community officials and buyout staff perceived themselves as 

sympathetic to residents’ concerns; however, many residents reported that they felt pressured to 

participate in the buyout program. 

Neighborhood attachment. Many residents considered their neighborhood to be as important, 

if not more important, than the probability of future flooding in deciding whether or not to 

participate in a buyout program. Residents stated that their neighborhood provided a sense of 

11-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Chapter 11 − Working with Property Owners 

community and home, and access to familiar resources such as transportation, shopping, 

employment, recreation, and places of worship. 

Buyout factors. Residents and buyout staff reported several factors that contributed to the 

difficulties during the buyout process: lengthy delays before settlement, miscommunication, 

lack of trust in buyout staff, and a feeling of pressure to participate in buyout program. 

11.4 Next Steps 

Finally, one of two steps remains for follow-up: 

1. 	 The property owner accepts the proposed mitigation measure. Both the community 

official and the property owner explore options for accomplishing this mitigation 

measure. A design professional should be consulted to determine the exact cost of the 

mitigation measure and how then to proceed with construction. Applicable hazard 

mitigation assistance programs (see Appendix E) should be researched to determine 

which ones might provide funding opportunities for the mitigation project. A 

benefit/cost analysis should be conducted to determine whether the project is eligible for 

FEMA funding. 

2. 	 The property owner rejects the proposed mitigation measure based on personal 

preference, cost, or other reasons. 

a. 	 Record the property owner’s concerns regarding the proposed 

mitigation measure on Worksheet C, Initial Consultation with Property 

Owner. 

b. 	 Review Worksheet B with the property owner to determine whether 

other appropriate mitigation measures might warrant additional 

consideration. The process described in Section 3.5, Evaluating the 

Mitigation Measures, should be followed to determine whether any of 

the available mitigation measures preferred by the property owner are 

appropriate for the flood risk and construction characteristics of the 

structure. 

11.5 Available Resources 

Fraser et al. Implementing Floodplain Land Acquisition Programs in Urban 

Localities. Report prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

http://www.unc.edu/~fraser18/publications/Floddplain%20Project%20Report.Fin 

al.pdf 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 11-5 
Chapter 11 − Working with Property Owners 

This page left intentionally blank. 

11-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 

Information Packet 

This information packet includes the following documents: 

• Technical Considerations Scorecard (Worksheet A) 

• Appropriate Mitigation Measures (Worksheet B) 

• Initial Consultation with Property Owner (Worksheet C) 

• Preliminary Cost Estimating Worksheet (Worksheet D) 

• NT Basic Report 

Date Prepared: July 24, 2006 Date Property Visited: July 13, 2006 

Property Owner Name: Janet Wilson 

Property Address: 19000 Main Street, Roanoke, VA 20202-6689 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 1234567 

Prepared by: Bryant Shea 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures A-1
This page left intentionally blank. 

A-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Question Response 

Drainage 

Improvements 

Barriers

Wet

Floodproofing 

Dry

Floodproofing Elevation 

Relocation 

Acquisition 

 Wood Frame/ Metal/ 

Other 

 Concrete/ Masonry/ 

Brick Faced 

1. What is the structure type? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab

 Manufactured Home Good Fair 

2. What is the condition of the structure? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab

 Poor Slab-on-grade (Diagram 1, 3, 6, or 7) Basement/ Split level 

(Diagram 2 or 4) 

3. What is the foundation type? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab Diagram numbers refer to Elevation Certificate found in the NT. Piers, Posts, Columns, or 

Crawlspace (Diagram 5 or 8) 

Worksheet A: Technical Considerations Scorecard 

Date Prepared: July 24, 2006 Date Property Visited: July 13, 2006 

Property Owner Name: Janet Wilson Legend Mitigation measure is not appropriate. Property Address: 19000 Main Street, Roanoke, VA 20202-6689 Mitigation measure may be appropriate and requ

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 1234567 Mitigation measure is appropriate. Prepared by: Bryant Shea NT Reference indicates where the information may be fo

Instructions to complete Worksheet A: Technical Considerations Scorecard 1. For each of the questions, based on the property information, put a check mark in the appropriate box in the “Response” column. 

2. For the row with a check mark in the “Response” column, check all boxes that are not blacked out. 3. After completing the questions, review each of the mitigation measures columns. Select the “Appropriate Mitigation Measures” box only for those columns that do 

boxes in the selected response row. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
A-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures fo

Question Response 

Drainage 

Improvements 

Barriers 

Wet 

Floodproofing 

Dry 

Floodproofing 

Elevation 

Relocation 

Acquisition 

 1-2 4. What is the number of stories? 

NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab 3 or more 

 < 2,500 sq ft 

5. What is the building footprint? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Additional Site Information tab > 2,500 sq ft 

 Deep (> 6ft)  Moderate (3 to 6 ft) 

6. What is the flood protection depth? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab 

 Shallow (<3 ft)  Yes 7. Does flash flooding occur at the project 

site? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab No 8. What is the flood velocity? Fast (>5 fps) NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab Slow/Moderate (<5 fps) 9. Is the structure located in the floodway? YesNT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and Hazard tab NoAppropriate Mitigation Measures fps = feet per second ft = feet sq ft = square feet
Decision Factors – LOWEST score is most appropriate – See Reverse for Notes 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Technical 

Considerations* Relative Costs* Human 

Intervention 

Annual 

Maintenance 

Total 

Score 

Barriers 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

13 pts 

Elevation 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

12 pts 

Relocation 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

10 pts 

Acquisition 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

8 pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

Worksheet B: Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

Date Prepared: July 24, 2006 Date Property Visited: July 13, 2006 

Property Owner Name: Janet Wilson 

Property Address: 19000 Main Street, Roanoke VA 20202-6689 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 1234567 

Prepared by: Bryant Shea 

Instructions to complete Worksheet B: Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

1. List the mitigation measures from the “Appropriate Mitigation Measures” row from Worksheet A, Technical

Considerations Scorecard (all checked boxes in last row of Worksheet A). 

2. Using information from Chapters 4 through 10 of FEMA 551, Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone 

Structures, rank each measure as High, Moderate, or Low. See “Tips to Rank Mitigation Measures” on the next page for 

additional information. 

3. Check the appropriate box (High, Moderate, or Low) under each of the decision factors. 

4. Total the points for each mitigation measure. The LOWEST total points indicates the most appropriate mitigation 

measure(s). 

5. Include notes describing how the determination was made for a particular ranking. 

*NOTE: Since Technical Considerations and Relative Costs are more significant in selecting appropriate mitigation measure(s), they are weighted 

higher than Human Intervention and Annual Maintenance. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures A-5 
Mitigation 

Measures 

Technical Considerations 

Barriers 

Technical considerations include depth and velocity of flood and flash flooding (see Worksheet A). Estimated 

cost of constructing a floodwall or levee will be low and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is High for small 

barrier – relative cost ranking is Low (approximately $25,000 for a 4-foot levee and $35,000 for a 4-foot 

floodwall based on FEMA 312). Human intervention is High since the property owner must be able to install 

flood gates as a flood event occurs and adequate warning time must be provided. Flash flooding occurs at the 

project site, therefore barriers will be ranked as High for human intervention. Annual maintenance is required by 

the property owner to check the barrier for leaks and will be Moderate. 

Elevation 

Technical considerations include structure type (masonry), foundation type (basement), and flood velocity (> 5 

fps) (see Worksheet A). Estimated cost to elevate 8 feet to BFE is Moderate (approximately $83,000) based on 

the estimate from FEMA 312 and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is Moderate – relative cost ranking is 

Moderate. Little or no human intervention is required once the structure has been elevated and is therefore ranked 

Low. Annual maintenance of an elevated structure will be minimal; ranking is set as Low. 

Relocation 

Technical considerations include structure type (masonry) (see Worksheet A). Relative cost to relocate a masonry 

structure on a basement foundation to a site less than 5 miles away on the same type of foundation is Moderate 

(approximately $128,000) and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is Moderate – relative cost ranking is 

Moderate. Human intervention is not required once the structure has been relocated from the floodprone site. Low 

ranking. Annual maintenance for a relocated or acquired property includes maintenance of the abandoned site by 

the community, ranking is Low. 

Acquisition 

Technical considerations – none. Low ranking (see Worksheet A). Estimated cost is High (see Worksheet D for 

sample cost estimate) and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is High – relative cost ranking is moderate. Human 

intervention is not required once the structure has been acquired. Low ranking. Annual maintenance for a 

relocated or acquired property includes maintenance of the abandoned site by the community, ranking is Low. 

Tips to Rank Mitigation Measures (Worksheet B Cont.) 

Technical Considerations 

Use the responses in Worksheet A, Technical Considerations Scorecard, to determine a ranking of High, Moderate, or Low for 

each mitigation measure. 

 If there are no grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration ranking is Low. 

 If there are 1 or 2 grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration score is Moderate. 

 If there are 3 or more grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration score is High. 

List any considerations in the implementation process that could be a limiting factor or clear constraint in the Notes section. 

Relative Costs 

Rank each of the mitigation measures based on the estimated cost to address the flood risk and the likelihood of costeffectiveness. Chapters 4 through 10 and Appendix D include information to rank each mitigation measure based on FEMA 312, 

Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House From Flooding, and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles 

and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. Low relative cost indicates Low ranking and high relative cost 

indicates High ranking. 

Need for Human Intervention 

This reflects the need for human intervention to operate the mitigation measure and the warning time to conduct the required 

activity. Generally, the more “passive” the system (i.e., requiring the least human interaction), the more reliable the system will 

be over time, thereby resulting in a Low ranking. Mitigation measures that require human intervention, such as barriers and dry 

floodproofing, receive a High ranking,. 

Need for Annual Maintenance 

This reflects the level of effort of annual maintenance required by each mitigation measure. Similar to human intevention, less 

annual maintenance results in a Low ranking. 

NOTE: If two or more mitigation measures tie with the lowest score, other decision factors should be considered in determining 

the most appropriate mitigation measure(s). These considerations include, but are not limited to aesthetics; access to site; 

housing of occupants during the project; compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations; historic preservation 

concerns; and availability of contractors. 

The other decision factors should be listed in the Comments section of Worksheet C. 

NOTES: 

A-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
NO PHOTO 

AVAILABLE 

Worksheet C: Initial Consultation with Property Owner 

Date Prepared: July 24, 2006 Consultation Date: August 1, 2006 

Property Owner Name: Janet Wilson 

Property Address: 19000 Main Street, Roanoke, VA 20202-6689 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 1234567 

Prepared by: Bryant Shea 

Instructions to complete Worksheet C: Initial Consultation with Property Owner 

1. Record recommended mitigation measure(s) with the lowest score from Worksheet B and include any comments for the 

discussion with the property owner. 

2. Record property owner’s response to recommended mitigation measure(s). 

3. If an appropriate mitigation measure has been agreed upon, record it under “Property Owner Preferred Mitigation 

Measure(s)”. A detailed cost estimate and/or benefit/cost analysis (BCA) will be necessary to ensure the preferred 

mitigation measure is appropriate. The cost analysis and additional required actions are recorded under “Action Items for 

Follow-Up.” 

Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) 

 Drainage Improvements  Elevation 

 Barriers  Relocation 

 Dry Floodproofing : Acquisition 

 Wet Floodproofing 

Comments 

Acquisition is the recommended mitigation measure. Elevation and relocation are alternate mitigation measures. In order to select 

the most appropriate mitigation measure, the following decision factors should be discussed with the property owner: aesthetic 

concerns, housing of occupants during the project, compliance with all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances, and access 

to the site. 

Response from Property Owner 

Property Owner Preferred Mitigation Measure(s) 

Action Items for Follow-Up 

1. Develop detailed cost estimate for each preferred mitigation measure

 2. Conduct BCA 

3. Determine funding sources 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures A-7 
This page left intentionally blank 

A-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
.Worksheet D: Preliminary Cost Estimating Worksheet 

Date Prepared: July 24, 2006 Date Property Visited: July 13, 2006 

Property Owner Name: Janet Wilson 

Property Address: 19000 Main Street, Roanoke VA 20202-6689 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 1234567 

Prepared by: Bryant Shea 

Mitigation Measure: Acquisition and demolition of 19000 Main Street 

Cost Component Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total 

Acquisition of Structure $275,000 1 $275,000 

Acquisition of Land $149,000 1 $149,000 

Certified Real Estate Appraisal $500 1 $500 

Disconnect Utilities $500 1 $500 

Surveying $1,000 1 $1,000 

Title Search, Deed Preparation, Attorney 

Fees, Permits and Plan Review Costs 

 $1,100 1 $1,100 

Installation of Erosion Controls $600 1 $600 

Demolition $7,000 1 $7,000 

Grading and Restabilization $1,500 1 $1,500 

Uniform Relocation Assistance (URA) $6,500 1 $6,500 

Other (Environmental Report, Advertising) $1,000 1 $1,000 

Subtotal Retrofitting Measure(s) $443,700 

Contractor’s Profit (10%) $44,370 

Design Fee (10%) 

Loss of Income (optional) 

Displacement Expenses (optional) 

Contingency 

Subtotal Other Costs $44,370 

Total Costs $488,070 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures A-9 
This page left intentionally blank. 

A-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures A-11 
This page left intentionally blank. 

A-12 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 

Information Packet 

This information packet includes the following documents: 

• Technical Considerations Scorecard (Worksheet A) 

• Appropriate Mitigation Measures (Worksheet B) 

• Initial Consultation with Property Owner (Worksheet C) 

• Preliminary Cost Estimating Worksheet (Worksheet D) 

• NT Basic Report 

Date Prepared: Date Property Visited: 
 

Property Owner Name: 
 

Property Address: 
 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 
 

Prepared by: 
 
This page left intentionally blank. 
Worksheet A: Technical Considerations Scorecard 

Date Prepared: Date Property Visited:

Property Owner Name: Legend Mitigation measure is not appropriate. Property Address: Mitigation measure may be appropriate and requRepetitive Loss Property Locator Number: Mitigation measure is appropriate. Prepared by: NT Reference indicates where the information may be fo

Instructions to complete Worksheet A: Technical Considerations Scorecard 1. For each of the questions, based on the property information, put a check mark in the appropriate box in the “Response” column. 

2. For the row with a check mark in the “Response” column, check all boxes that are not blacked out. 3. After completing the questions, review each of the mitigation measures columns. Select the “Appropriate Mitigation Measures” box only for those columns that do 

boxes in the selected response row. 

Question Response 

Drainage 

Improvements 

Barriers

Wet

Floodproofing 

Dry

Floodproofing Elevation 

Relocation 

Acquisition 

1. What is the structure type? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab

 Wood Frame/ Metal/ 

Other 

 Concrete/ Masonry/ 

Brick Faced 

 Manufactured Home 

2. What is the condition of the structure? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab

 Good Fair Poor 

3. What is the foundation type? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab Diagram numbers refer to Elevation Certificate found in the NT. 

Slab-on-grade (Diagram 1, 3, 6 or 7) Basement/ Split level 

(Diagram 2 or 4) 

 Piers, Posts, Columns, or 

Crawlspace (Diagram 5 or 8) 
Question Response 

Drainage 

Improvements 

Barriers

Wet

Floodproofing 

Dry

Floodproofing 

Elevation 

Relocation 

Acquisition 

4. What is the number of stories? NT Reference - Limited Data View, Site Observations tab 

 1-2  3 or more 

5. What is the b

uilding footprint? 

NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Additional Site Information ta

b

 < 2,500 sq ft  > 2,500 sq ft 

6. What is t

he flood protection dept

h? 

NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and 

Hazard tab 

Dee

p (> 6ft) 

Moderate (3 to 6 ft) 

 Shallow (<3 ft) 

7. 

Does flash floodi

ng occ

ur at t

he project 

site? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and 

Hazard ta

b

 Yes No 

8. What is the flood 

velocity? 

NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and 

Hazard ta

b

 Fast (>5fps)  Slow/Moderate 

(<5 fps) 

9. Is the structure located in the floodway? NT Reference - Detailed Data View, Elevation and 

Hazard ta

b

 Yes No 

Appropriate Mitigation Measures fps = feet per second ft = feet sq ft = square feet 
Worksheet B: Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

Date Prepared: Date Property Visited:
 

Property Owner Name: 
 

Property Address: 
 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 

Prepared by: 

Instructions to complete Worksheet B: Appropriate Mitigation Measures 

1.	 List the mitigation measures from the “Appropriate Mitigation Measures” row from Worksheet A, Technical
 

Considerations Scorecard, (all checked boxes in last row of Worksheet A) 
 

2.	 Using information from Chapters Four through 10 of FEMA 551, Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for 

Floodprone Structures, rank each measure as High, Moderate or Low. See “Tips to Rank Mitigation Measures” on next 

page for additional information. 

3.	 Check the appropriate box (High, Moderate or Low) under each of the decision factors. 

4.	 Total the points for each mitigation measure. The LOWEST total points indicates the most appropriate mitigation 

measure(s). 

5.	 Include notes describing how the determination was made for a particular ranking. 

*NOTE: Since Technical Considerations and Relative Costs are more significant in selecting appropriate mitigation measure(s), they are weighted 

higher than Human Intervention and Annual Maintenance. 

Decision Factors – LOWEST score is most appropriate – See Reverse for Notes 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Technical 

Considerations* Relative Costs* Human 

Intervention 

Annual 

Maintenance 

Total 

Score 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 

__________ 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (6 pts) 

M (4 pts) 

L (2 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

H (3 pts) 

M (2 pts) 

L (1 pts) 

__ pts 
Tips to Rank Mitigation Measures (Worksheet B Cont.) 

Technical Considerations 

Use the responses in Worksheet A, Technical Considerations Scorecard, to determine a ranking of High, Moderate, or Low for 

each mitigation measure. 

 If there are no grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration ranking is Low. 

 If there are 1 or 2 grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration score is Moderate. 

 If there are 3 or more grayed out boxes checked for a mitigation measure, the technical consideration score is High. 

List any considerations in the implementation process that could be a limiting factor or clear constraint in the Notes section. 

Relative Costs 

Rank each of the mitigation measures based on the estimated cost to address the flood risk and the likelihood of costeffectiveness. Chapters 4 through 10 include information to rank each mitigation measure based on FEMA 312, Homeowner’s 

Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House From Flooding, and FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of 

Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures. Low cost indicates Low ranking and high cost indicates High ranking. 

Need for Human Intervention 

This reflects the need for human intervention to operate the mitigation measure and the warning time to conduct the required 

activity. Generally, the more “passive” the system (i.e., requiring the least human interaction), the more reliable the system will 

be over time, thereby resulting in a Low ranking. Mitigation measures that require human intervention, such as barriers and dry 

floodproofing, receive a High ranking,. 

Need for Annual Maintenance 

This reflects the level of effort of annual maintenance required by each mitigation measure. Similar to human intevention, less 

annual maintenance results in a Low ranking. 

NOTE: If two or more mitigation measures tie with the lowest score, other decision factors should be considered in determining 

the most appropriate mitigation measure(s). These considerations include, but are not limited to aesthetics; access to site; 

housing of occupants during the project; compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations; historic preservation 

concerns; and availability of contractors. 

The other decision factors should be listed in the Comments section of Worksheet C. 

NOTES: 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Technical Considerations 
NO PHOTO 

AVAILABLE 

Worksheet C: Initial Consultation with Property Owner 

Date Prepared: Consultation Date: 
 

Property Owner Name: 
 

Property Address: 
 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 

Prepared by: 

Instructions to complete Worksheet C: Initial Consultation with Property Owner 

1.	 Record recommended mitigation measure(s) with the lowest score from Worksheet B and include any comments for the 

discussion with the property owner. 

2.	 Record property owner’s response to recommended mitigation measure(s). 

3.	 If an appropriate mitigation measure has been agreed upon, record it under “Property Owner Preferred Mitigation 

Measure(s)”. A detailed cost estimate and/or benefit/cost analysis (BCA) will be necessary to ensure the preferred 

mitigation measure is appropriate. The cost analysis and additional required actions are recorded under “Action Items for 

Follow-Up.” 

Recommended Mitigation Measure(s) 

 Drainage Improvements  Elevation 

 Barriers  Relocation 

 Dry Floodproofing  Acquisition 

 Wet Floodproofing 

Comments 

Response from Property Owner 

Property Owner Preferred Mitigation Measure(s) 

Action Items for Follow-Up 
This page left intentionally blank. 
Worksheet D: Preliminary Cost Estimating Worksheet 

Date Prepared: Date Property Visited:
 

Property Owner Name: 
 

Property Address: 
 

Repetitive Loss Property Locator Number: 
 

Prepared by: 
 

Mitigation Measure:
 

Cost Component Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total 

Subtotal Retrofitting Measure(s) 

Contractor’s Profit (10%) 

Design Fee (10%) 

Loss of Income (optional) 

Displacement Expenses (optional) 

Contingency 

Subtotal Other Costs 

Total Costs 
This page left intentionally blank. 
Appendix C − Cost Estimating 

APPENDIX C – COST ESTIMATING 

C.1 Introduction 

A cost estimate for each property’s selected mitigation measure should be developed to make a 

decision on the most appropriate mitigation measure. The cost estimate describes all anticipated 

costs associated with the proposed mitigation measure and represents the approximate price of 

the proposed activity. The cost estimate should typically reflect the activities described in the 

scope of work prepared for the activity and be prepared with adequate documentation. 

The cost estimate documentation should include the following: 

	 Detailed information for all project 
 

costs, including materials, labor, NOTE: Some situations will require equipment, and subcontract costs, in more complicated comparisons addition to maintenance costs over the (e.g., comparing the cost of 
 useful life of the project 	 implementing a regional solution 

	 The source of the estimate (e.g., barriers or drainage improvements - 

documented local cost, previous 	 with the cost of mitigation measures 

on a structure by structure basis). In similar projects, bids from qualified 	 this case, it is recommended that professionals, published national or 	 accurate cost estimates be 

local cost-estimating guides, etc.) and 	 performed so that a comprehensive

documentation supporting each source 	 decision can be made. 

	 Other related construction, demolition, 

relocation, maintenance, environmental, and/or historic preservation costs (i.e., survey, 

permitting, site preparation, and material disposal) 

	 Base year of all cost estimates provided 

	 Anticipated date of construction 

	 Potential impacts to estimated costs resulting from any delay to the anticipated start of 

construction 

C.2 Options to Creating a Cost Estimate 

The following options should be used to develop preliminary cost estimates for each appropriate 

mitigation measure. These options are listed in order of increasing cost and level of effort based 

on the reliability and level of detail of the cost estimate. For example, the first option is the least 

expensive way to conduct a cost estimate; however, it only provides an approximate cost of the 

project. 

	 Determine costs for similar projects in the area. Consulting with contractors and 

building permit officials may yield a list of similar projects in the area. Verify that site 

and structure conditions are similar before using these costs. 

	 Determine costs for similar projects per staff at the State Hazard Mitigation Office 

or FEMA Regional Office. State and Federal level staff are involved with a number of 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures C-1 
Appendix C − Cost Estimating 

mitigation projects funded by Federal programs (see Appendix E, Hazard Mitigation 

Assistance Programs) and may be able to provide cost information for similar projects. 

As with the first option, ensure that the projects are similar in nature. 

	 Conduct Preliminary Cost Estimates using assistance from local community agency 

staff, if available. 

	 Conduct Preliminary Cost Estimates using qualified consultants. 

One of these methods may identify the appropriate mitigation measure. However, if this is not 

the case, it may be necessary to perform some level of benefit/cost analysis (BCA) to 

comparatively evaluate mitigation measures (see Appendix D, Determining Cost-Effectiveness). 

C.3 Process to Develop a Cost Estimate 

Table C-1. Steps to Develop a Cost Estimate 

Step Task 

1. Break out the work into 

smaller tasks 

Smaller tasks can be quantified in terms of materials and/or 

labor requirements. This can be organized by using a tool 

such as the Preliminary Cost Estimating Worksheet in 

Appendix B. 

2. Estimate the quantities of 

materials and labor 

For example, tasks required to elevate a structure include: 

 Design, engineering, and permitting 

 Mobilization 

 Site preparation (including establishing access, 

disconnecting utilities) 

 Excavation 

 Demolition and hauling 

 Jacking and cribbing 

 Masonry or cast-in-place concrete 

 Carpentry 

 Utility hook-ups 

 Site restoration and landscaping 

3. 

Determine the unit cost 

for materials and labor 

for each task 

Use a resource such as the RS Means Building Construction 

Data or Marshall and Swift (see also Subsection C.4, 

Available Resources) 

4. 

Record costs on the 

Preliminary Cost 

Estimating Worksheet 

5. 

Compute cost per task 

and the total cost 

estimate 

For each of the five steps, there are associated labor, material, and equipment costs. Indirect 

costs required to complete a project can include administrative costs. These costs are allowable 

under FEMA hazard mitigation assistance grants and can be a significant determination factor in 

C-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix C − Cost Estimating 

selecting the preferred mitigation activity. For example, relocation costs for residents involving 

temporary displacement or moving to another structure should be included in the cost estimate. 

The relative cost of replacement housing in the area should be considered, particularly where 

acquisition is the preferred alternative. Also remember the contractor needs to earn a profit. Thus 

an estimate of cost should include a profit-factor of about 10 to 15 percent of the total estimated 

cost. 

As much detail as possible must be included when preparing a construction cost estimate. 

Pertinent details for a construction cost estimate can include the amount of dirt to be removed (in 

cubic feet), weight of steel to be purchased (in tons), amount and type of lumber needed (in 

linear feet), and type and quantity of concrete needed (in cubic yards). 

C.4 Available Resources 

Detailed construction cost estimating appears to be a time-consuming task. However, there are 

two reliable estimating handbooks to help streamline the process. 

The RS Means’ Building Construction Cost Data is an industry standard. It covers every aspect 

of construction pricing needed to prepare detailed project estimates, including the following: 

	 Unit costs (lists construction items from site work to finish work) 

	 References (includes backup information on how the costs are developed and what they 

include) 

	 Unit costs for thousands of residential building components 

	 Location cost adjustment factors 

	 Daily productivities and standard crews 

	 Overhead and profit guidance 

Additional information on RS Means products and order forms may be found on the website: 

http://www.rsmeans.com/. 

The Marshall & Swift’s Residential Cost Handbook provides an in-depth description of the costs 

involved in different types of residential structures, including site-built and modular housing. 

With six classifications for building quality, ranging from low to excellent, this extensive 

handbook helps eliminate the guesswork of construction quality with corresponding descriptions 

and photographs. The Residential Cost Handbook and additional resources are found on the 

Marshall & Swift website (http://www.marshallswift.com/). 

NOTE: RS Means and Marshall & Swift also produce cost estimating handbooks for other types 

of construction (e.g., heavy construction of dams). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures C-3 
Appendix C − Cost Estimating 

This page intentionally left blank. 

C-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix D − Determining Cost-Effectiveness 

APPENDIX D – DETERMINING COST-EFFECTIVENESS 

D.1 Introduction 

At its most basic level, benefit/cost analysis (BCA) Why should a BCA be conducted? determines whether the cost of investing in a A determination of cost-effectiveness 

mitigation project today (the “cost”) will result in is required by FEMA if a proposed sufficiently reduced damage in the future (the project is to be considered for 

“benefits”) to justify spending money on the project. Federal funding. If the proposed 

If the benefit is greater than the cost, then the project project is determined to be costis cost-effective; if the benefit is less than the cost, effective (i.e., has a BCR of 1.0 or 

then the project is not cost-effective. Thus, the greater), funding from FEMA’s grant 

benefit/cost ratio (BCR) should have a value of 1.0 or programs, such as the Hazard 

greater. 	 Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), 

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program 

A BCA is conducted in the same way for each type of (FMA), Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

hazard mitigation project; the difference is in the Program (PDM), Repetitive Flood 

Claims (RFC) Program, and others types of data used in the calculations. Refer to the could be used to reduce the cost of document What is a Benefit, located on FEMA’s the project to the property owner. For 

Mitigation BCA Toolkit (currently Version 3.0), for additional information on these 

additional information. 	 programs and others that fund 

eligible projects, refer to Appendix E, 

D.2	 Process to Assess Cost-Effectiveness Hazard Mitigation Assistance 

Programs. 

There are two different methods for assessing costeffectiveness: 1) a quick screening to determine 

whether the project is likely to be cost-effective and 2) a BCA using software available through 

FEMA. 

Quick Screening to Determine Cost Effectiveness 

With some experience, a community official can look at key project data, before doing any 

analysis, and determine whether the project is likely to be cost-effective. Table D-1 shows how 

to quickly screen a project for cost-effectiveness based on these attributes, as well as the 

damages expected from various types of floods. In Table D-1, the damages refer to losses to 

structures or residences, contents of these structures, displacement costs (temporary housing), 

and the loss of critical public services and infrastructure (e.g., hospitals, electricity, schools, 

roads, bridges, etc.). The more frequent the flood, the more damage can be expected, and the 

more cost-effective the project is likely to be, as it protects against those damages. It is important 

to understand that “quick screening” will not yield a conclusive cost-effectiveness determination 

and should be used only as a preliminary indicator of the appropriateness of the project. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures D-1
Appendix D − Determining Cost-Effectiveness 

Table D-1. Quick Screening to Determine the Likelihood of Cost-Effectiveness 

Likelihood of Cost-Effectiveness 

Attribute Very High High Moderate Low 

Frequency of 

Flood 10-year flood 10- to 25-year 

flood 

25- to 50-year 

flood 

50- to 100-year 

flood 

Level of 

Damage 

Very high 

damage High damage Limited damage Minor damage 

Project Cost Low relative to 

damages 

Moderately-low 

relative to 

damages 

Close to cost of 

damages in 

frequent floods 

High relative to 

damages in 

frequent floods 

Project 

Benefits Very high High Moderate Low 

Criticality

(impact or 

loss of 

function) 

Very high, 

broad damages 

to community 

High damages to 

key facility; 

community 

Moderate loss of 

certain functions 

limited impact 

Little or no loss of 

functions; minor 

impact 

(Source: How to Determine Cost-Effectiveness of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Chapter 3 from FEMA’s Mitigation BCA 

Toolkit Version 2.0) 

Benefit/Cost Analysis 

FEMA’s Mitigation Benefit/Cost Toolkit includes BCA modules, which address both riverine 

and coastal flooding. The riverine software includes three levels of BCA: Very Limited Data 

Module, Limited Data Module, and Full Data Module. These modules are described in detail in 

How to Determine Cost-Effectiveness of Hazard Mitigation Projects (also referred to as the 

“Yellow Book”) located on FEMA’s Mitigation BCA Toolkit. The toolkit itself may be obtained 

free of charge by contacting the BC Helpline at 1-(866) 222-3580 or bchelpline@dhs.gov. 

The procedures required by FEMA for performing a BCA are specific and well defined. Without 

previous experience with FEMA-compliant BCAs, there are two options: 

 Get training. FEMA offers extensive training opportunities through the Emergency 

Management Institute (EMI). Contact the State Hazard Mitigation Office or FEMA 

Regional Office for information on how to obtain training. 

 Get help. Consultants with BCA experience are effective, especially with more 
 

complicated projects. 
 

D-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

APPENDIX E – HAZARD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
 

NOTE: By the end of FY 2007, FEMA will offer five hazard mitigation assistance programs 

as described below. All five programs have unique statutory authorities, program 

requirements, and triggers for funding. All of the programs have the common goal of 

providing funds to States, Territories, Tribal governments, and communities to reduce the 

loss of life and property from future natural hazard events. These programs as described 

below are subject to revision. Check with the FEMA Regional Office for the latest 

information (http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions/). 

NOTE: The mitigation reconstruction project entails demolishing the floodprone house and 

then reconstructing a new elevated, code-compliant house on the same site. These 

projects are most often justified through application of the following criteria: 

•	 When the cost of a standard elevation or acquisition project approximates or 
 

exceeds the cost to construct a new structure, or
 

•	 When a standard elevation or acquisition project is not possible or feasible due to 

the condition of the structure or some other structural impairment. 

CAUTION

If a mitigation reconstruction method is selected, FEMA grant program funding may not be 

available. In instances where traditional mitigation options are not programmatically 

feasible, check with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer to determine if funding may be 

available for the mitigation measure selected before proceeding. 

E.1 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) was created in 1988 by Section 404 of the 

Robert S. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (amendments 

include the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993, the Disaster Mitigation 

Act of 2000, and the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006). The HMGP 

assists States, Territories, Tribal governments, and communities in implementing long-term 

hazard mitigation measures for all hazard types following a major disaster declaration. A key 

purpose of the HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to 

protect life and property from future disasters is not lost during the recovery and reconstruction 

process following a disaster. 

The program’s objectives are to: 

	 Significantly reduce or permanently eliminate future risk to lives and property from 

severe hazards 

	 Provide funds to implement projects previously identified in State, Tribal, or local hazard 

mitigation plans 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures E-1 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

	 Enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a 

disaster 

HMGP funds can be made available based on a percentage of the estimated Federal funds to be 

spent on the Public and Individual Assistance programs (minus administrative expenses) for each 

disaster. These grant funds may be used to fund up to 75 percent of the eligible project costs. The 

non-Federal match does not need to be in cash; in-kind services or materials may be used. 

Eligible mitigation measures under the HMGP include acquisition or relocation of floodprone 

structures, elevation of floodprone structures, seismic rehabilitation of existing structures, 

constructing “safe rooms” inside schools or other buildings in tornado-prone areas, and 

strengthening of existing structures against hurricane force winds. Additionally, up to 7 percent 

of HMGP funds, available from any disaster, may be used to develop State and/or local 

mitigation plans. 

The State, as grantee, is responsible for administering the HMGP. Communities develop HMGP 

project applications and apply for funds through the State. The State notifies potential applicants 

of the availability of funding, defines a project selection process, ranks and prioritizes projects 

for funding, and forwards projects to FEMA for approval. The applicant, or subgrantee, carries 

out approved projects. The State, local government, or the property owner must provide a 25 

percent match, which can be from a combination of cash and in-kind sources. 

In response to flood hazards, FEMA’s primary emphasis is on nonstructural hazard mitigation 

measures. Nonstructural measures include the acquisition and demolition, relocation, elevation, 

and floodproofing of flood-damaged or floodprone properties. 

For more information on the HMGP, contact the State Hazard Mitigation Office or the FEMA 

Regional Office. Detailed information about managing the program can be found in FEMA’s 

HMGP Desk Reference (FEMA 345) at 

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/index.shtm. To order a copy, call 1-(800)480-

2520. 

E.2 Flood Mitigation Assistance Program 

The Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program provides funding to assist States and 

communities to accomplish flood mitigation planning and implement measures to reduce future 

flood damages to structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This 

program was created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 United 

States Code [USC] 4101). 

The FMA program provides annual funding for planning and project grants. Eligible activities 

for planning grants include conducting local planning meeting to obtain citizen input; contracting 

for engineering or planning technical assistance; surveying structures at risk of flooding; and 

assessing repetitive losses. Only projects for mitigation activities specified in an approved flood 

mitigation plan are eligible for project grants. For example, a community may determine in its 

plan that acquisition of structures would be the preferred alternative for floodway areas, while 

elevation may be a more appropriate solution in other areas of the floodplain. 

E-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

The purpose of FMA project grants is to assist States and communities in implementing flood 

mitigation projects to reduce the risk of flood damage to NFIP-insured structures. Eligible types 

of projects include: 

	 Elevation of residential structures and elevation or dry floodproofing of non-residential 

structures in accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.3. 

	 Acquisition of structures and underlying real property. 

	 Relocation of structures from acquired or deed restricted real property to sites not prone 

to flood hazards. 

	 Dry floodproofing of non-residential structures. 

	 Demolition of structures on acquired or deed restricted real property. 

	 Beach nourishment activities that focus on facilitating natural dune replenishment 

through the planting of native dune vegetation and/or the installation of sand fencing. 

Placement of sand on beach is not eligible. 

	 Minor physical flood control projects that do not duplicate the flood-prevention activities 

of other Federal agencies that address localized flood problem areas such as stabilization 

of stream banks, modification of existing culverts, or creation of small stormwater 

retention basins. Major structural flood control structures, such as levees, dams, and 

seawalls are not eligible. 

Any State agency, participating NFIP community (including tribal governments), or qualified 

local organization is eligible to participate in the FMA program. Communities that are suspended 

or on probation from the NFIP are not eligible. Individuals wishing to participate in the FMA 

program should contact their community officials. 

A project must, at a minimum, be: 

	 Cost-effective 

	 Cost beneficial to the NFIP 

	 Technically feasible 

	 Physically located in a participating NFIP community, or must reduce future flood 

damages in an NFIP community 

A project must also conform to: 

	 The minimum standards of the NFIP floodplain management regulations 

	 The applicant’s flood mitigation plan 

	 All applicable laws and regulations, such as Federal and State environmental standards 

or local building codes 

FEMA distributes funds to States, which in turn provide funds to communities. The State serves 

as the grantee and program administrator for the FMA. The State: 

	 Sets mitigation priorities 

	 Provides technical assistance to communities applying for FMA funds 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures E-3 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

	 Evaluates grant applications based on minimum eligibility criteria and State priorities 

	 Awards planning grants 

	 Works with FEMA to approve projects and awards funds to communities 

	 Ensures that all community applicants are aware of their grant management 
 

responsibilities 
 

For more information on how to apply for a FMA grant, contact the State FMA Point of Contact 

(POC) or call the nearest FEMA Regional Office for the name of the State’s POC. A list of 

FEMA Regional Offices and contact information are included in Appendix F and are available 

from http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions/. Additional information on the FMA program 

may be found at the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fma/index.shtm. 

E.3 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program 

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program was authorized by Section 203 of the Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C., as 

amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). 

Funding is provided to assist States, Tribes, and communities in implementing cost-effective 

hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive mitigation program and reduce 

injuries, loss of life, damage, and destruction of property. FEMA provides PDM grants to states 

which, in turn, provide sub-grants to local governments for mitigation activities such as planning 

and the implementation of projects identified through the evaluation of natural hazards. 

Only the State emergency management agencies or a similar office (i.e., the office that has 

emergency management responsibility) of the State as well as federally recognized Indian tribal 

governments are eligible to apply to FEMA for assistance as applicants under this program. 

Guidance materials for all Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs such as model scopes of 

work, Benefit/Cost Analysis Guidelines, and engineering case studies are currently available on 

the FEMA webpage at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/index.shtm or from the 

FEMA Regional Office. 

E.4 Repetitive Flood Claims Program 

The Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) grant program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the 

long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the NFIP that have had one or more 

claim payments for flood damages, through mitigation activities that are in the best interest of the 

National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). RFC funds may only mitigate structures that are located 

within a State or community that can not meet the requirements of the FMA program for either 

cost share or capacity to manage the activities. 

The RFC program was authorized by Section 1323 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 4030, as amended by 

the Flood Insurance Reform Act (FIRA) of 2004, Public Law 108-264. 

The RFC program provides funding up to $10 million a year with up to 100 percent Federal 

funding (no non-Federal match requirement). Current eligible activities include the acquisition of 

E-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties and non-residential properties that meet the same claim 

thresholds as defined SRL properties. Planning grants are not available under the RFC. There is 

currently no local plan requirement for participation. 

A project must, at a minimum, be: 

	 Cost-effective 

	 Cost beneficial to the NFIP 

	 Technically feasible 

	 Physically located in a participating NFIP community 

	 Insured under the NFIP 

A project must also conform to: 

	 The minimum standards of the NFIP floodplain management regulations 

	 All applicable laws and regulations, such as Federal and State environmental standards 

or local building codes 

Any State agency, participating NFIP community (including Tribal governments), or qualified 

local organization is eligible to participate in the RFC program. Communities that are suspended 

or on probation from the NFIP are not eligible. Individuals wishing to participate in the RFC 

program should contact their community officials. Only those States or communities that can not 

meet the requirements of the FMA program for either cost share or capacity to manage the 

activities are eligible to apply under the RFC program. 

Guidance materials and application forms, such as grant administrative forms, project subapplications, and management costs sub-applications (for Grantees), are available at any FEMA 

Regional Office or on the FEMA web page: 

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/rfc/index.shtm. 

E.5 Severe Repetitive Loss Program 

The Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) program provides funding to reduce or eliminate the longterm risk of flood damage to severe repetitive loss properties and the associated drain on the 

NFIF from such properties. See Appendix I – Glossary, for a definition of SRL properties. 

The SRL program was authorized by Section 1361A of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 4102a, as amended by 

the Flood Insurance Reform Act (FIRA) of 2004, Public Law 108-264. 

FEMA is currently developing regulations for the SRL program. The FEMA web page 

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/srl/index.shtm will be updated with information on the 

availability of funds, application periods, and other program requirements periodically. 

The SRL program currently provides funding up to $40 million annually until 2009 with 75 

percent Federal funding (minimum 25 percent non-Federal match requirement). A reduced match 

(10 percent non-Federal funding) is allowed for States with approved State mitigation plans 

meeting the hazard mitigation planning requirements under Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures E-5 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 USC 5165) that specifies how the State 

reduces the number of severe repetitive loss properties. 

Allocations to eligible applicants (States, Territories, and Tribal governments) will be based on 

the number of severe repetitive loss properties in each State or Territory. A set-aside amount of 

10 percent is reserved for communities that receive little or no assistance under the allocation 

formula. 

Current eligible activities include: 

	 Acquisition, structure demolition, or structure relocation with the property deed restricted 

for open space uses in perpetuity 

	 Elevation of structures 

	 Floodproofing of structures 

	 Minor physical localized flood control projects 

	 Mitigation and reconstruction 

E.6 Additional Information 

	 Contact information for State Emergency Management Directors through the National 

Emergency Management Agency, http://www.nemaweb.org/State_Contacts/index.cfm 

	 Contact information for State Hazard Mitigation Officers through the State Offices and 

Agencies of Emergency Management, http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/statedr.shtm 

	 Public Assistance (PA) Program, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/index.shtm 

The objective of FEMA’s PA Grant Program is to provide assistance to States, local 

governments, and certain non-profit organizations to alleviate suffering and hardship resulting 

from major disasters or emergencies declared by the President. 

Through the PA Program, FEMA provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance for the 

repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the 

facilities of certain Private Non-Profit (PNP) organizations. 

The Federal share of assistance is not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost for emergency 

measures and permanent restoration. The grantee (usually the State) determines how the nonFederal share (up to 25 percent) is split with the subgrantees (eligible applicants). 

	 Individual Assistance Programs, 

http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/individual-assistance.shtm 

When the President declares a disaster and authorizes providing Individual Assistance, FEMA's 

Individuals and Households Program (IHP) can help homeowners and renters affected by the 

disaster with housing needs and necessary expenses. 

E-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

To be considered for IHP housing assistance, the affected home must be the individual's primary 

residence and it must be located in the disaster area designated for Individual Assistance. To be 

considered for IHP assistance for necessary expenses or serious needs, the loss must have 

occurred in the disaster area designated for Individual Assistance. An individual or a pre-disaster 

member of the household must be a United States citizen, a non-citizen national, or a qualified 

alien. 

When a disaster is declared and Individual Assistance is authorized, affected individuals are 

directed to register with FEMA and to make sure that the information they provide is complete 

and correct. 

Disaster assistance is money or direct assistance to individuals, families, and businesses in an 

area whose property has been damaged or destroyed and whose losses are not covered by 

insurance. It is meant to help you with critical expenses that cannot be covered in other ways. 

This assistance is not intended to restore your damaged property to its condition before the 

disaster. 

While some housing assistance funds are available through FEMA’s IHP, most disaster 

assistance from the Federal Government is in the form of loans administered by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

E.7 Housing Needs 

•	 Temporary Housing (a place to live for a limited period of time). Money is available to 

rent a different place to live, or a government provided housing unit when rental 

properties are not available. 

•	 Repair. Money is available to homeowners to repair damage from the disaster to their 

primary residence that is not covered by insurance. The goal is to make the damaged 

home safe, sanitary, and functional. 

•	 Replacement. Money is available to homeowners to replace their home destroyed in the 

disaster that is not covered by insurance. The goal is to help the homeowner with the cost 

of replacing his or her destroyed home. 

•	 Permanent Housing Construction. Direct assistance or money for the construction of a 

home. This type of help only occurs in insular areas or remote locations specified by 

FEMA, where no other type of housing assistance is possible. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures E-7 
Appendix E – Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs 

Money is available for necessary expenses and serious needs caused by the disaster. This 

includes: 

•	 Disaster-related medical and dental costs. 

•	 Disaster-related funeral and burial costs. 

•	 Clothing; household items (room furnishings, appliances); tools (specialized or protective 

clothing and equipment) required for your job; necessary educational materials 

(computers, school books, supplies). 

•	 Fuels for primary heat source (heating oil, gas, firewood). 

•	 Clean-up items (wet/dry vacuum, air purifier, and dehumidifier). 

•	 Disaster damaged vehicle. 

•	 Moving and storage expenses related to the disaster (moving and storing property to 

avoid additional disaster damage while disaster-related repairs are being made to the 

home). 

•	 Other necessary expenses or serious needs as determined by FEMA. 

•	 Other expenses that are authorized by law. 

Moving and storage expenses related to the disaster (moving and storing property to avoid 

additional disaster damage while disaster-related repairs are being made to the home). 

•	 Other necessary expenses or serious needs as determined by FEMA. 

•	 Other expenses that are authorized by law. 

•	 U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), http://www.sba.gov 

http://www.fema.gov/assistance/process/sba_assistance.shtm 

The SBA was created in 1953 as an independent agency of the Federal Government to aid, 

counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business concerns; preserve free competitive 

enterprise; and maintain and strengthen the overall economy of our nation. 

The SBA provides various types of loans for businesses of all sizes and homeowners and renters 

in the event of a disaster. This includes physical disaster loans, economic injury loans, military 

reservists' loans, and home and personal property loans. These loans help people recover from 

disasters and rebuild their lives by providing affordable, timely, and accessible financial 

assistance to homeowners, renters, and businesses. 

E-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix F – FEMA Regional Offices 

APPENDIX F – FEMA REGIONAL OFFICES 
 

http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm 

Location FEMA 

Region I: 

(CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) 

Region II: 

(NJ, NY) 

Caribbean Office 

(PR, VI) 

FEMA 

99 High Street, 6th Floor 

Boston, MA 02110 

(617) 956-7559 

26 Federal Plaza, Suite 1311 

New York, NY 10278-0002 

(212) 680-3600 

Mailing address: 
 

FEMA Caribbean Division 
 

P.O. Box 70105 

San Juan PR 00936-0105 

(787) 296-3500 

Physical address: 

New San Juan Office Building 

159 Calle Chardon Avenue 

Sixth Floor 

Hato Rey, PR 00918 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures F-1 
Appendix F – FEMA Regional Offices 

Region III: 

(DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV) 

Region IV: 

(AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, 

SC, TN) 

Region V: 

(IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI) 

Region VI: 

(AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) 

Region VII: 

(IA, KS, MO, NE) 

Region VIII: 

(CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) 

Region IX: 

(AZ, CA, HI, NV, Guam, 

American Samoa, Mariana 

Islands) 

Region X: 

(AK, ID, OR, WA) 

One Independence Mall, 6th Floor 
 

615 Chestnut Street 
 

Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404 
 

(215) 931-5608 
 

Koger Center - Rutgers Building 
 

3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road, Room 270 
 

Atlanta, GA 30341 
 

(770) 220-5200 
 

536 S. Clark Street 
 

6th Floor 
 

Chicago, IL 60605 
 

(312) 408-5500 
 

Federal Regional Center 
 

800 North Loop 288 
 

Denton, TX 76201-3698 
 

(940) 898-5399 
 

Suite 300 
 

9221 Ward Parkway 
 

Kansas City, MO 64114-3372 
 

(816) 283-7002 
 

Building 710 
 

Denver Federal Center 
 

P.O. Box 25267 
 

Denver, CO 80225-0267 
 

(303) 235-4800 
 

1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 
 

Oakland, CA 94607-4052 
 

(510) 627-7100 
 

Federal Regional Center 
 

130 228th Street, S.W.
 

Bothell, WA 98021-9796 
 

(425) 487-4600 
 

 F-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix F – FEMA Regional Offices 

Regional Repetitive Loss Coordinators 

As of June 9, 2006 

Region Contact Name Contact Phone # Backup Contact Supervisor 

I Daisy Sweeney* (617) 832-4788 Mike Goetz 

II Pat Griggs (212) 680-3625 Scott Duell* Mary Colvin 

(212) 680-3630 

III Dave Odegard (215) 931-5506 Gene Gruber 

IV David L. Thomas II (770) 220-5457 Robert Durrin Brad Loar 

(770) 220-5428 

V Eric Kuklewski (312) 408-5230 Terry Fell 

VI Mark Price (940) 898-5359 Ross Richardson Frank Pagano 

(940) 898-5143 

VII Joe Chandler (816) 283-7071 Georgia Wright Kathy Strange 

VIII Bonnie Heddin* (303) 235-4739 Robert Ives 

IX Mike Hornick* (510) 627-7260 Michael Shore 

X Denise Atkinson (425) 487-4677 Bruce Knipe Mark Carey 

* Region’s FMA coordinator 

Headquarters Contact 

Errol Garren (202) 646-3678 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures F-3 
Appendix F – FEMA Regional Offices 

This page left intentionally blank. 

 F-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

APPENDIX G – STATE AND TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

OFFICES 

The following contact information is subject to change. For a current list of State Historic 

Preservation Offices, see http://www.ncshpo.org/stateinfolist/FullList.htm 

For a complete list of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, see 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tribal/thpo.htm 

State Historic Preservation Offices 

Alabama 

Col. John Neubauer, Executive Director & 

SHPO 

Alabama Historical Commission 

468 South Perry Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130-0900 

(334) 242-3184, Fax (334) 240-3477 

Alaska 

Judith Bittner, SHPO 

Alaska DNR, Office of History & 

Archaeology 

550 West 7th Avenue 

Suite 1310 

Anchorage, AK 99501-3565 

(907 )269-8721, Fax (907 )269-8908 

judy_bittner@dnr.state.ak.us 

American Samoa 

John Enright, HPO 

Executive Offices of the Governor 

AS Government/Historic Preservation 

Office 

Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 

(684) 699-2316, Fax (684) 699-2276 

enright@samoatelco.com 

Arizona 

James W. Garrison, SHPO 

Arizona State Parks 

1300 West Washington 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

(602) 542-4174, Fax (602) 542-4180 

jgarrison@pr.state.az.us 

Arkansas 

Cathie Matthews, SHPO 

Department of Arkansas Heritage 

323 Center Street 

Suite 1500 

Little Rock, AR 72201 

(501) 324-9150, Fax (501) 324-9154 

cathie@arkansasheritage.org 

California 

Milford Wayne Donaldson, SHPO 

Office of Historic Preservation 

Department of Parks & Recreation 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

(916) 653-6624, Fax: (916) 653-9824 

mwdonaldson@parks.ca.gov 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-1 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Colorado 

Georgianna Contiguglia, SHPO 
 

Colorado Historical Society 
 

1300 Broadway 
 

Denver, CO 80203 
 

(303) 866-3355, Fax (303) 866-4464 
 

Connecticut 

Jennifer Aniskovich, Executive Director 

Connecticut Commission on Culture and 

Tourism 

755 Main Street 

One Financial Plaza 

Hartford, CT 06103 

(860) 566-4770, Fax (860) 566-5078 
 

janiskovich@ctarts.org 

Delaware 

Timothy A. Slavin, SHPO 
 

Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs 
 

21 The Green 
 

Dover, DE 19901 
 

(302) 739-5313, Fax (302) 739-6711 
 

timothy.slavin@state.de.us 

District of Columbia 

SHPO 

Historic Preservation Office 
 

801 North Capitol Street, NE. 
 

3rd Floor 
 

Washington, DC 20002 
 

(202) 442-8800, Fax (202) 741-5246 
 

Florida 

Frederick Gaske, SHPO & Division Director
 

Division of Historical Resources, 
 

Department of State 
 

500 South Bronough Street 
 

Room 305 
 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 
 

(850) 245-6300 
 

fgaske@dos.state.fl.us 

Bureau of Historic Preservation 

(800) 847-7278 
 

(850) 245-6333, Fax: (850) 245-6437 
 

Georgia 

Noel A. Holcomb, SHPO 
 

Historic Preservation Division/DNR 
 

34 Peachtree Street NW 
 

Suite 1600 
 

Atlanta, GA 30303-2316 
 

(404) 656-2840, Fax: (404) 651-8739 
 

Guam 

Lynda B. Aguon, SHPO 
 

Guam Historic Preservation Office 
 

Department of Parks & Recreation 
 

490 Chalan Palasyo 
 

Agana Heights, Guam 96910 
 

(671) 475-6294/6295/6272 
 

Fax: (671) 477-2822 
 

laguon@mail.gov.gu 

Hawaii 

Peter T. Young, SHPO 
 

Department of Land & Natural Resources 
 

601 Kamokila Boulevard 
 

Suite 555 
 

Kapolei, HI 96707 
 

(808) 548-6550, Fax (808) 587-0018 
 

G-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Idaho 

Keith Peterson Interim Director 

Idaho State Historical Society 

2205 Old Penitentiary Road 

Boise, ID 83712 

(208) 334-2682 

kpeterson@ishs.idaho.gov 

Illinois 

William L. Wheeler, SHPO 

Associate Director 

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 

1 Old State Capitol Plaza 

Springfield, IL 62701-1512 

(217) 785-4512, Fax (217) 524-7525 

Indiana 

Kyle J. Hupfer, SHPO 

Director, Department of Natural Resources 

402 West Washington Street 

Indiana Government Center South 

Room W256 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

dhpa@dnr.in.gov 

Iowa 

Anita Walker, SHPO 

State Historical Society of Iowa 

Capitol Complex 

East 6th and Locust Street 

Des Moines, IA 50319 

(515) 281-8741, Fax (515) 242-6498 

anita.walker@iowa.gov 

Kansas 

Jennie Chinn, SHPO, Executive Director 

Kansas State Historical Society 

6425 Southwest 6th Avenue 

Topeka, KS 66615-1099 

(785) 272-8681 x210 

Fax: (785) 272-8682 

jchinn@kshs.org 

Kentucky 

David L. Morgan, SHPO & Executive 

Director 

Kentucky Heritage Council 

300 Washington Street 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 564-7005, Fax (502) 564-5820 

davidl.morgan@ky.gov 

Louisiana 

Pamela A. Breaux, SHPO 

Department of Culture, Recreation & 

Tourism 

P.O. Box 44247 

Baton Rouge, LA 70804 

(225) 342-8200, Fax (225) 342-8173 

Maine 

Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., SHPO 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission 

55 Capitol Street 

Station 65 

Augusta, ME 04333 

(207) 287-2132, Fax (207)287-2335 

earle.shettleworth@maine.gov 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-3 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Marshall Islands, Republic of the 

Lenest Lanki, HPO 

Secretary of Interior and Outer Islands 

Affairs 

P.O. Box #1454 

Majuro Atoll, MH 96960 

(011) 692-625-4642 

Fax (011) 692-625-5353 

Maryland 

J.. Rodney Little, SHPO 

Maryland Historical Trust 

100 Community Place 

3rd Floor 

Crownsville, MD 21032-2023 

(410) 514-7600, Fax (410) 514-7678 

RLittle@mdp.state.md.us 

Massachusetts 

Brona Simon, DSHPO & Acting Executive 

Director 

Massachusetts Historical Commission 

220 Morrissey Boulevard 

Boston, MA 02125 

(617) 727-8470, Fax (617) 727-5128 

Brona.Simon@state.ma.us 

Michigan 

Brian D. Conway, SHPO 

Michigan Historical Center 

702 West Kalamazoo Street 

P.O. Box 30740 

Lansing, MI 48909-8240 

(517) 373-1630, Fax (517) 335-0348 

conwaybd@michigan.gov 

Micronesia, Federated States of 

Rufino Mauricio, FSM HPO 

Office of Administrative Services 

Division of Archives and Historic 

Preservation 

FSM National Government 

P.O. Box PS 70 

Palikir, Pohnpei, FM 96941 

(011) 691-320-2343 

Fax: (011) 691-320-5634 

hpo@mail.fm 

Minnesota 

Dr. Nina Archabal, SHPO 

Minnesota Historical Society 

345 Kellogg Boulevard West 

St. Paul, MN 55102-1906 

(651) 296-2747, Fax (651) 296-1004 

Mississippi 

H.T. Holmes, SHPO 

Mississippi Department of Archives & 

History 

P.O. Box 571 

Jackson, MS 39205-0571 

(601) 576-6850 

Missouri 

Doyle Childers, SHPO 

State Department of Natural Resources 

(573) 751-4732, Fax (573) 751-7627 

Montana 

Dr. Mark F. Baumler, SHPO 

State Historic Preservation Office 

1410 8th Avenue 

P.O. Box 201202 

Helena, MT 59620-1202 

(406) 444-7719, Fax:(406) 444-6575 

swilmoth@mt.gov 

G-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Nebraska 

Michael Smith, Director and SHPO 

Nebraska State Historical Society 

P.O. Box 82554 

1500 R Street 

Lincoln, NE 68501 

(402) 471-4745, Fax (402 )471-3100 

msmith@nebraskahistory.org 

Nevada 

Ronald James, SHPO 

Historic Preservation Office 

100 North Stewart Street 

Capitol Complex 

Carson City, NV 89701-4285 

(775) 684-3440, Fax (775) 684-3442 

New Hampshire 

James McConaha, SHPO & Director 

New Hampshire Division of Historical 

Resources 

19 Pillsbury Street 

2nd Floor 

Concord, NH 03301-3570 

(603) 271-6435, Fax:(603) 271-3433 

TDD: (800)735-2964 

James.McConaha@dcr.nh.gov 

New Jersey 

Bradley M. Campbell, SHPO 

Department of Environmental Protection 

401 East State Street 

P.O. Box 402 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

(609) 292-2885, Fax (609) 292-7695 

New Mexico 

Katherine (Kak) Slick, SHPO 

Historic Preservation Division 

Bataan Memorial Building 

407 Galisteo Street 

Suite 236 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

(505) 827-6320, Fax: (505) 827-6338 

katherine.slick@state.nm.us 

New York 

Bernadette Castro, SHPO 

Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation 

Agency Building #1 

Empire State Plaza 

Albany, NY 12238 

(518) 474-0443 

North Carolina 

Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow SHPO 

Division of Archives & History 

4610 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-4610 

(919) 807-7280, Fax: (919) 733-8807 

jeff.crow@ncmail.net 

North Dakota 

Merlan E. Paaverud, Jr., SHPO 

State Historical Society of North Dakota 

612 East Boulevard Avenue 

Bismarck, ND 58505 

(701 )328-2666, Fax:(701) 328-3710 

mpaaverud@nd.gov 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-5 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Northern Mariana Islands, 

Commonwealth of 

Mary Margaret (Maggie) Sablan, Acting 

HPO 

Department of Community & Cultural 

Affairs 

Division of Historic Preservation, Airport 

Road 

Saipan, MP 96950 

(670) 664-2120/2125, Fax: (670) 664-2139 

cnmihpo@vzpacifica.net 

Ohio 

Rachel M. Tooker, SHPO 

Ohio Historic Preservation Office 

Ohio Historical Society 

567 East Hudson Street 

Columbus, OH 43211-1030 

(614) 298-2000; Fax (614) 298-2037 

rtooker@ohiohistory.org 

Oklahoma 

Dr. Bob L. Blackburn, SHPO 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Oklahoma Historical Society 

Oklahoma History Center 

2401 North Laird Avenue 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105-7914 

(405) 521-6249, Fax (405) 522-0816 

Oregon 

Tim Wood, SHPO 

Oregon Parks & Recreation Department 

725 Summer Street, NE. 

Suite C 

Salem, OR 97301 

Palau, Republic of 

Victoria N. Kanai, HPO 

Ministry of Community & Cultural Affairs 

P.O. Box 100 

Koror, PW 96940 

(011) 680-488-2489 

Fax: (011) 680-488-2657 

Pennsylvania 

Barbara Franco, SHPO 

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission 

300 North Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

(717) 787-2891 

Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of 

Aida Belen Rivera Ruiz, SHPO 

State Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 9066581 

San Juan, PR 00906-6581 

(787) 721-3737, Fax (787) 721-3773 

abrivera@prshpo.gobierno.pr 

Rhode Island 

Frederick C. Williamson, SHPO 

Rhode Island Historic Preservation & 

Heritage Commission 

Old State House 

150 Benefit Street 

Providence, RI 02903 

(401) 222-2678, Fax (401) 222-2968 

South Carolina 

Dr. Rodger E. Stroup, SHPO 

Department of Archives & History 

8301 Parklane Road 

Columbia, SC 29223-4905 

(803) 896-6100, Fax (803) 896-6167 

G-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

South Dakota 

Jay D. Vogt, SHPO 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Cultural Heritage Center 

900 Governors Drive 

Pierre, SD 57501 

(605) 773-3458, Fax (605) 773-6041 

jay.vogt@state.sd.us 

Tennessee 

James H. Fyke, SHPO 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation 

401 Church Street 

L & C Tower 1st Floor 

Nashville, TN 37243-0435 

Phone: (615)532-0106 

Fax: (615)532-0120 

Texas 

F. Lawrence Oaks, SHPO 

Texas Historical Commission 

P.O. Box 12276 

Austin, TX 78711-2276 

(512) 463-6100, Fax (512) 463-8222 

l.oaks@thc.state.tx.us 

Utah 

Wilson Martin, SHPO 

Utah State Historical Society 

300 Rio Grande 

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 

(801) 533-3500, Fax (801) 533-3503 

wmartin@utah.gov 

Vermont 

Jane Lendway, SHPO 

Vermont Division for Historic Preservation 

National Life Building, Drawer 20 

Montpelier, VT 05620-0501 

(802) 828-3211 

jane.lendway@state.vt.us 

Virgin Islands 

Dean C. Plaskett, Esq., SHPO 

Department of Planning & Natural 

Resources 

Cyril E. King Airport 

Terminal Building - 2nd Floor 

St. Thomas, VI 00802 

Virginia 

Kathleen Kilpatrick, SHPO 

Department of Historic Resources 

2801 Kensington Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23221 

(804) 367-2323, Fax: (804) 367-2391 

Kathleen.Kilpatrick@dhr.virginia.gov 

Washington 

Dr. Allyson Brooks, SHPO 

Office of Archeology & Historic 

Preservation 

P.O. Box 48343 

Olympia, WA 98504-8343 

(360) 586-3065 

1063 South Capitol Way 

Suite 106 

Olympia, WA 98501 

(360) 586-3064, Fax:(360) 586-3067 

allyson.brooks@dahp.wa.gov 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-7 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

West Virginia 

Randall Reid-Smith, SHPO 
 

West Virginia Division of Culture & History 
 

Historic Preservation Office 
 

1900 Kanawha Boulevard East 
 

Charleston, WV 25305-0300 
 

(304) 558-0220, Fax:(304) 558-2779 
 

Wisconsin 

Dr. Michael E. Stevens, SHPO 
 

Wisconsin Historical Society 
 

816 State Street 
 

Madison WI 53706 
 

(608) 264-6464, Fax (608) 264-6504 
 

michael.stevens@wisconsinhistory.org 

Wyoming 

Sara Needles, Interim SHPO 
 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 
 

2301 Central Avenue 
 

3rd Floor 
 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 
 

(307) 777-7697, Fax (307) 777-6421 
 

sneedl@state.wy.us 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices 

Karen Kaniatobe 
 

THPO 
 

Absentee-Shawnee of Oklahoma 
 

Cultural Preservation Department 
 

2025 S. Gordon Cooper Dr. 
 

Shawnee, OK 74801 
 

(405) 275-4030 
 

Richard Begay 
 

THPO 
 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
 

650 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite D 
 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 
 

(760) 883-1368 
 

Sharon Lemieux 

THPO 

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

Indians 

P.O. Box 39 
 

Odenanh, WI 54861 
 

(715) 682-7111, (715) 682-7115 
 

Bill Helmer 

THPO 

Big Pine Tribe Paiute Tribe of the Owens 

Valley 

P.O. Box 700 
 

Big Pine, CA 93513 
 

(760) 938-2003 
 

Leland Chavez 
 

THPO 
 

Bishop Paiute Tribe 
 

50 Tu Su Lane 
 

Bishop, CA 93514 
 

(760) 873-3665 
 

G-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

John Murray 

THPO 

Blackfeet Nation 

P.O. Box 2809/527 
 

Browning, MT 59417 
 

(406) 338-7406 
 

Paul Angell 

THPO 

Blue Lake Rancheria 

P.O. Box 428 
 

Blue Lake, CA 95525-0428 
 

(707) 668-5101 
 

Mr. Bill Helmer 

THPO 

Big Pine Tribe Paiute Tribe of the 

Owens Valley 

P.O. Box 700 
 

Big Pine, CA 93513 
 

(760)938-2003 
 

Leland Chavez 
 

THPO 
 

Bishop Paiute Tribe 
 

50 Tu Su Lane 
 

Bishop, CA 93514 
 

(760) 873-3665 
 

John Murray 

THPO 

Blackfeet Nation 

P.O. Box 2809/527 
 

Browning, MT 59417 
 

(406) 338-7406 
 

Paul Angell 

THPO 

Blue Lake Rancheria 

P.O. Box 428 
 

Blue Lake, CA 95525-0428 
 

(707) 668-5101 
 

Rosemary Berens 

THPO 

Boise Forte Band of 

Chippewa Indians 

5344 Lakeshore Drive 

P.O. Box 16 
 

Nett Lake, MN 55772 
 

(218) 757-3261 
 

rozeberens@yahoo.com 

Robert Cast 

THPO 

Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 487 
 

Binger, OK 73009 
 

(405) 656-2901 
 

rcast@cox.net 

Dr. Wenonah G. Haire Jr. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Catawba Indian Nation 

Catawba Cultural Preservation Project 

P.O. Box 750 
 

Rock Hill, SC 29731 
 

(803) 328-2427 
 

wenonahh@ccppcrafts.com (also cc to 
 

jackier@ccppcrafts.com) 
 

Albert LeBeau 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

P.O. Box 590 
 

Eagle Butte, SD 57625 
 

(605) 964-7554 
 

Alvin Windy Boy 
 

THPO 
 

Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's 
 

Reservation 
 

RR1 #544 
 

Box Elder, MT 59521 
 

(406) 395-4147 
 

awindyboy@earthlink.net 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-9 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Terry Cole 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

P. O. Drawer 1210 

Durant, OK 74702-1210 

(580) 924-8280 

Quanah Matheson 

THPO 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe 

P.O. Box 408 

Plummer, ID 83851 

(208) 686-0675 

Marcia Pablo 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of 

the Flathead Indian Nation 

Tribal Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 278 

Pablo, MT 59855 

(406) 675-2700 

skthpo@ronan.net 

Kate Valdez 

THPO 

Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of Yakama Nation 

P.O. Box 151, Fort Road 

Toppenish, WA 98948 

(509) 985-3327 

Camille Pleasants 

Acting Tribal Preservation Officer 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation 

Archaeology and History Department 

P.O. Box 150 

Nespelem, WA 99155 

(509) 634-2654 

thpo@televar.com 

Carey Miller 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation 

P.O. Box 638 

Pendleton, OR 97801 

(541) 276-3629 

CareyMiller@ctuir.com 

Robert Brunoe 

Acting Tribal Preservation Officer 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation in Oregon 

Department of Cultural Resources 

P.O. Box C 

Warm Springs, OR 97761 

(541) 553-2001 

rbrunoe@wstribes.org 

Russell Townsend 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

Cultural Resources Department 

Qualla Boundary P.O. Box 455 

Cherokee, NC 28719 

(828) 488-0237 

Ray Martell 

THPO 

Elk Valley Rancheria 

2332 Howland Hill Road 

Crescent City, CA 95531 

(707) 464-4680 

martell@elk-valley.com 

Loretta Jackson 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Hualapai Tribe 

P.O. Box 310 

Peach Springs, AZ 86434 

(928) 769-2224 

lorac@citlink.net 

G-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Summer Sky Cohen 
 

THPO 
 

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 
 

107 Beartown Road 
 

Baraga, MI 49908 
 

(906) 353-6623 
 

Jerry Smith 
 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 
 

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior 
 

Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin 
 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 
 

13394 W. Trepania Road 
 

Hayward, WI 54843 
 

(715) 634-0092 
 

Kelly Jackson -Golly 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians 

P.O. Box 67 
 

Lac du Flambeau, WI 54538 
 

(715) 588-2139 
 

ldfthpo@nnex.net 

giiwegiizhigookway Martin 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians 

P.O. Box 249 
 

Watersmeet, MI 49969 
 

(906) 358-4577 
 

(906) 358-4850 
 

Gina Papasodora 
 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 
 

Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 
 

6530 Hwy 2 NW
 

Cass Lake, MN 56633 
 

(218) 335-2940
 

Nicole Baker 
 

Tribal Preservation Officer 
 

Lummi Nation 
 

2616 Kwina Drive 
 

Bellingham, WA 98226 
 

(360) 384-2298 
 

Janine Bowechop 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Makah Tribe 

Makah Cultural and Research Center 

P.O. Box 160 
 

Neah Bay, WA 98357 
 

(360) 645-2711 
 

mcrc@olypen.com 

David Grignon 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin 

P.O. Box 910 
 

Keshena, WI 541350910 
 

(715) 799-5258 
 

mah2@frontiernet.net 

Holly Houghten Jr. 

Interim Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Mescalero Apache Tribe 

P.O. Box 227 
 

Mescalero, NM 88340 
 

(505) 464-4711 
 

Holly@mescaleroapache.org 

Natalie Weyaus 
 

Tribal Preservation Officer 
 

Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians 
 

43408 Oodena Drive 
 

Onamia, MN 56359 
 

(320) 532-4181 
 

nataliew@millelacojibwe.nsn.us 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-11 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

John Brown 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Narragansett Indian Tribe 

P.O. Box 700 

Wyoming, RI 02898 

(401) 364-9873 

brwnjbb123@aol.com 

Alan Downer 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Navajo Nation 

Historic Preservation Department 

P.O. Box 4950 

Window Rock, AZ 86515 

(928) 871-6437 

alandowner@navajo.org 

Kevin Cannell 

THPO 

Nez Perce Tribe of Indians 

P.O. Box 365 

Lapwai, ID 83540-0365 

(208) 843-7400, (208) 843-7419 

Conrad Fisher 

THPO 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

P.O. Box 128 

Lame Deer, MT 59043 

(406) 477-6035 

Corina Williams 

THPO 

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 365 

Oneida, WI 54155 

(920) 490-2096 

Donald Soctomah 

THPO 

Passamaquoddy Tribe 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 102 

Princeton, ME 04668 

(207) 796-0822 

soctomah@ainop.com 

Bonnie Newsom Jr. 

THPO 

Penobscot Nation 

Cultural and Historic Preservation Prog 

6 River Road, Indian Island 

Old Town, ME 04668 

(207) 817-7332 

bnewsom@penobscotnation.org 

Robert Thrower 

THPO 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, AL 36502 

(251) 368-9136 

Dr. Jonathan Damp 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Pueblo of Zuni 

Heritage and Historic Preservation Office 

P.O. Box 339 

Zuni, NM 87327 

(505) 782-4814 

zcre@nm.net 

Lisa Bresette 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas 

88385 Pike Road, Highway 13 

Bayfield, WI 54814 

(715) 779-3648 

rcthpo@ncis.net 

G-12 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Russell Eagle Bear 

THPO 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe of Indians 

P.O. Box 809 

Rosebud, SD 57570 

(605) 747-4225 

Vernelda Grant 

THPO 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

P.O. Box 0 

San Carlos, AZ 85550 

(928) 475-5797 

Willard S. Steele 

THPO 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

AK-TAH-THI-KI Museum 

HC 61 Box 21-A 

Clewiston, FL 33440 

(863) 902-1113 

Kathleen Mitchell 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Seneca Nation of Indians 

Seneca-Iroquois National Museum 

794-814 Broad Street 

Salamanca, NY 14779 

(716) 945-1738 

snithpo@nycountry.com 

Aloma McGaa 

THPO 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate 

P.O. Box 707 

Agency Village, SD 57262 

(650) 698-3966 

Delbert Miller 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Skokomish Indian Tribe 

N. 541 Tribal Center Road 

Shelton, WA 98584 

(360) 426-4232 

Leon D. Bear 

THPO 

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians 

Tapai Project 

3359 South Main St., #808 

Salt Lake City, UT 84029 

(801) 484-4422 

Suntayea Steinruck 

THPO 

Smith River Rancheria 

140 Rowdy Creek Road 

Smith River, CA 95567 

(707) 487-9255 

sunsteinruck@tolowa.com 

Randy Abrahamson Jr. 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Spokane Tribe of Indians 

P.O. Box 100 

Wellpinit, WA 99040 

(509) 258-4315 

randya@spokanetribe.com 

Rhonda Foster 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Squaxin Island Tribe 

SE 70 Squaxin Lane 

Shelton, WA 98584 

(360) 432-3850 

rfoster@squaxin.nsn.us 

Sheree J. Bonaparte 

THPO 

St. Regis Mohawk 

412 State Route 37 

Akwesasne, NY 13655 

(518) 358-2272 

Tim Mentz 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

P.O. Box D 

Fort Yates, ND 58538 

(701) 854-2120 

tmentz@westriv.com 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-13 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Reno Franklin 

THPO 

Stewart's Point Rancheria Kashia Band of 

Pomo Indians 

3535 Industrial Drive, Suite B-3 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

(707) 591-0580, (707) 591-0583 

Sherry White 

THPO 

Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of 

Mohican Indians 

N8476 Moh-He-Con-Nuck Road 

Bowler, WI 54416 

(715) 793-4387 

Helene Rouvier 

THPO 

Table Bluff Reservation - Wiyot Tribe 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

1000 Wiyot Drive 

Loleta, CA 95551 

(707) 733-5055 

cultural@wiyot.com 

William Quackenbush 

THPO 

The Ho-Chunk Nation 

P.O. Box 677 

Black River Falls, WI 54615 

(715) 284-7181 

Barbara Durham 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe 

P.O. Box 206 

Death Valley, CA 92328-0206 

(760) 786-2374 

Earl Barbry Jr. 

Tribal Preservation Officer 

Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana 

P.O. Box 1589 

Marksville, LA 71351 

(318) 253-8174 

earlii@tunica.org 

Brady Grant 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

P.O. Box 900 

Belcourt, ND 58316 

(701) 477-2641 

brady@chippewacouncil.com 

Cheryl Andrews-Maltais 

THPO 

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

20 Black Brook Road 

Aquinnah, MA 025359701 

(508) 645-9265 

cmaltais@wampanoagtribe.net 

William Dancing Feather 

THPO 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

919 Highway 395 South 

Gardnerville, NV 89410 

(775) 888-0936 

Tom McCauley 

THPO 

White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa 

P. O. Box 418 

White Earth, MN 56591 

(218) 983-3263 

G-14 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

Mark Altaha 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

White Mountain Apache Tribe 

Heritage Program 

P.O. Box 507 

Fort Apache, AZ 85926 

(928) 338-3033 

markaltaha@wmat.nsn.us 

Dr. Thomas Gates 

Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer 

Yurok Tribe 

15900 Highway 101 N 

Klamath, CA 95548 

(707) 482-1822 

ythpo@yahoo.com 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures G-15 
Appendix G – State Historic Preservation Offices 

This page intentionally left blank. 

G-16 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

APPENDIX H – NFIP STATE COORDINATING AGENCIES 

AND STATE HAZARD MITIGATION OFFICERS 

The following contact information is subject to change. For a current list of State NFIP 

Coordinating Agencies, see http://www.floods.org/StatePOCs/stcoor.asp. 

State NFIP Coordinators 

Alabama 

James Meredith 

Alabama Dept. of Water Resources 

P. O. Box 5690 

Montgomery, AL 36103-5690 

(334) 353-0853, Fax (334) 242-0776 

kenm@adeca.state.al.us 

Alaska 

Christy Miller, CFM 

Alaska Dept. Community & Econ. Dev. 

550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1770 

Anchorage, AK 99501-3510 

(907) 269-4567, Fax (907) 269-4563 

christy_miller@commerce.state.ak.us 

Arizona 

Brian Cosson, CFM 

AZ Dept. of Water Resources 

3550 N. Central Ave. 

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2105 

(602) 771-8657, Fax (602) 771-8691 

btcosson@azwater.gov 

Arkansas 

Michael Borengasser, CFM 

Arkansas Soil & Water Consvn. Comm. 

101 E. Capitol Avenue, Suite 350 

Little Rock, AR 72201 

(501) 682-3969, Fax (501) 682-3991 

michael.borengasser@aswcc.arkansas.gov 

California 

Ricardo Pineda, PE, CFM 

California Dept. of Water Resources 

3310 El Camino Ave. 

Sacramento, CA 95821 

(916) 574-0611, Fax (916) 574-0678 

rpineda@water.ca.gov 

Colorado 

Kevin Houck, P.E., CFM 

Colorado Water Conservation Board 

1313 Sherman St. Rm. 721 

Denver, CO 80203 

(303) 866-4805, Fax (303) 866-4474 

kevin.houck@dwr.state.co.us 

Connecticut 

Diane Ifkovic 

NFIP State Coordinator 

CT Department of Environmental Protection 

79 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

(860) 424-3706, Fax (860) 424-4075 

diane.ifkovic@po.state.ct.us 

Delaware 

Michael Powell, CFM 

Delaware Dept. Natural Resources 

89 Kings Highway 

Dover, DE 19901 

(302) 739-4411, Fax (302) 739-6724 

mpowell@state.de.us 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures H-1 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

District of Columbia 

Timothy Karikari 
 

Department of Health 
 

51 N Street, NE, 5th Floor, Rm. 5021 
 

Washington, DC 20002 
 

(202) 535-2248, Fax (202) 535-1364 
 

timothy.karikari@dc.gov 

Florida 

Charles Speights 
 

Florida Comm. Affairs Emerg. Mgmt. 
 

2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. 
 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 
 

(850) 413-9960, Fax (850) 410-1582 
 

charles.speights@dca.state.fl.us 

Georgia 

Collis Brown, CFM 
 

Georgia Dept of Natural Resources 
 

Seven Martin Luther King Dr. Ste. 440 
 

Atlanta, GA 30334 
 

(404) 656-6382, Fax (404) 656-6383 
 

Collis_Brown@dnr.state.ga.us 

Hawaii 

Carol Tyau-Beam, CFM 
 

Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural Resources 
 

PO Box 373 
 

Honolulu, HI 96809 
 

(808) 587-0267, Fax (808) 587-0283 
 

carol.l.tyau@hawaii.gov 

Idaho 

Scott Van Hoff, CFM 
 

Idaho Dept. of Water Resources 
 

322 E. Front St. 
 

Boise, ID 83720 
 

(208) 287-4928, Fax (208) 287-6700 
 

scott.vanhoff@idwr.idaho.gov 

Illinois 

Paul Osman, CFM 
 

Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources 
 

One Natural Resources Way 
 

Springfield, IL 62702-1271 
 

(217) 782-4428, Fax (217) 785-5014 
 

posman@dnrmail.state.il.us 

Indiana 

Gregory Main, CFM 
 

Program Chair 
 

402 W. Washington Street, Room W264 
 

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2748 
 

(317) 234-1107, Fax (317) 233-4579 
 

gmain@dnr.state.in.us 

Iowa 

Bill Cappuccio 
 

Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources 
 

Wallace State Office Bldg. 
 

Des Moines, IA 50319 
 

(515) 281-8942, Fax (515) 281-8895 
 

bill.cappuccio@dnr.state.ia.us 

Kansas 

Rhonda Montgomery, CFM 
 

Kansas Dept. of Agriculture 
 

109 SW 9th St. 2nd Floor 
 

Topeka, KS 66612-1283 
 

(785) 296-4622, Fax (785) 296-4835 
 

rmontgomery@kda.state.ks.us 

Kentucky 

Christopher Hart 
 

Kentucky Div. of Water 
 

14 Reilly Road 
 

Frankfort, KY 40601 
 

(502) 564-3410, Fax (502) 564-9003 
 

chris.hart@ky.gov 

H-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Louisiana 

Cindy O'Neal, CFM 
 

Louisiana Dept. of Transportation & Dev. 
 

P.O. Box 94245, Capitol Station 

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9425 

(225) 274-4354, Fax (225) 274-4351 

cindyo'neal@dotd.louisiana.gov 

Maine 

Lou Sidell, Jr., CFM 

Maine State Planning Office 

38 State House Station 184 State St. 

Augusta, ME 04333-0038 

(207) 287-8063, Fax (207) 287-6489 

lou.sidell@maine.gov 

Maryland 

John Joyce, CFM 

Maryland Dept. of Environment 

1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 430 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

(410) 537-3914, Fax (410) 631-3873 

jjoyce@mde.state.md.us 

Massachusetts 

Richard Zingarelli 

MA DCR, Flood Hazard Mgmt. 

251 Causeway Street, Suite 700 

Boston, MA 02114 

(617) 626-1406, Fax (617) 626-1349 

richard.zingarelli@state.ma.us 

Michigan 

Les Thomas 

Michigan Dept. of Env. Quality 

P.O. Box 38458 

Lansing, MI 48909-7958 

(517) 335-3448, Fax (517) 373-9965 

thomasl@michigan.gov 

Minnesota 

Thomas Lutgen, CFM 

Minnesota Dept Natural Res. - Waters 

500 Lafayette Road 

St. Paul, MN 55155-4032 

(651) 259-5691, Fax (651) 296-0445 

tlutgen@dnr.state.mn.us 

Mississippi 

Al Goodman, Jr., CFM 

State NFIP Coordinator / Director 

Floodplain Management Bureau 

Office of Mitigation 

Mississippi Emerg. Mgmt. Agency 

P.O. Box 4501 Fondren Station 

Jackson, MS 39204-4501 

(601) 366-6325, Fax (601) 366-5349 

agoodman@mema.ms.gov 

Missouri 

Randy Scrivner 

Missouri State Emerg. Mgmt. Agency 

P.O. Box 116 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(573) 526-9116, Fax (573) 526-9198 

randy.scrivner@sema.dps.mo.gov 

Montana 

Lana Hedlund 

MT Floodplain Mgmt. Program 

PO Box 201601 

Helena, MT 59620-1601 

(406) 444-6654, Fax (406) 444-0533 

lhedlund@mt.gov 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures H-3 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Nebraska 

Brian Dunnigan 
 

Nebraska Dept. of Natural Resources 
 

301 Centennial Mall South 
 

Lincoln, NE 68509-4876 
 

(402) 471-3934, Fax (402) 471-2900 
 

bdunnigan@dnr.state.ne.us 

Nevada 

Christie James 
 

Nevada Div of Water Resources 
 

901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 2002 
 

Carson City, NV 89701 
 

(775) 684-2860 
 

cajames@water.nv.gov 

New Hampshire 

Joanne Cassulo 
 

Office of Energy & Planning 
 

57 Regional Dr., Suite 3 
 

Concord, NH 03301-8519 
 

(603) 271-2155, Fax (603) 271-2615 
 

joanne.cassulo@nh.gov 

New Jersey 

John Moyle 
 

New Jersey Dept. of Env. Prot. 
 

P.O. Box 419 
 

Trenton, NJ 08625 
 

(609) 984-0859, Fax (609) 984-1908 
 

john.moyle@dep.state.nj.us 

New Mexico 

Bill Borthwick, CFM 
 

New Mexico Office of Emergency Mgmt. 
 

P.O. Box 1628 
 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-1628 
 

(505) 476-9617, Fax (505) 471-9695 
 

wborthwick@dps.state.nm.us 

New York 

William Nechamen, CFM 
 

New York Dept. of Environmental Consvn. 
 

625 Broadway 
 

Albany, NY 12233-3507 
 

(518) 402-8146, Fax (518) 402-9029 
 

wsnecham@gw.dec.state.ny.us 

North Carolina 

Philip Letsinger, CFM 
 

North Carolina Div. Emerg. Mgmt. 
 

4713 Mail Service Center 
 

Raleigh, NC 27699-4713 
 

(919) 715-8000, Fax (919) 715-5408 
 

pletsinger@ncem.org 

North Dakota 

Jeffrey Klein, CFM 
 

North Dakota State Water Commission 
 

900 East Boulevard Avenue 
 

Bismarck, ND 58505-0850 
 

(701) 328-4898, Fax (701) 328-3747 
 

jjklein@state.nd.us 

Ohio 

Cynthia Crecelius, CFM 
 

Ohio Dept. of Natural Res. Div. of Water 
 

2045 Morse Rd., Bldg. B-2 
 

Columbus, OH 43224 
 

(614) 265-6754, Fax (614) 447-9503 
 

cindy.crecelius@dnr.state.oh.us 

Oklahoma 

Lou Klaver 
 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board 
 

3800 N. Classen Blvd. 
 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118 
 

(405) 530-8800, Fax (405) 530-8900 
 

lklaver@owrb.state.ok.us 

H-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Oregon 

Christine Valentine, CFM 
 

Dept. of Land Conservation & 
 

Development 
 

635 Capitol St., NE, Suite 150 
 

Salem, OR 97301-2540 
 

(503) 373-0050 x250, Fax (503) 375-5518 
 

christine.valentine@state.or.us 

Pennsylvania 

Kerry Wilson 
 

Pennsylvania Dept. Comm/Econ Affairs 
 

400 N. St., 4th floor 
 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 
 

(717) 720-7445, Fax (717) 234-4560 
 

krwilson@state.pa.us 

Puerto Rico 

Angel Rodriguez 

Puerto Rico Planning Board 

P.O. Box 41119 - Minillas Govt. Center 
 

Santurce, PR 00940-1119 
 

(787) 723-6200, Fax (787) 268-6858 
 

rodriguez_a@jp.gobierno.pr 

Rhode Island 

Pamela Pogue, CFM 

Rhode Isl. Emerg. Mgmt Agency MURI 

645 New London Ave. 

Cranston, RI 02920 

(401) 946-9996, Fax (401) 944-1891 
 

pam.pogue@ri.ngb.army.mil 

South Carolina 

Lisa Jones, CFM 
 

South Carolina Dept. of Natural Res. 
 

1000 Assemply St., Ste. 345C 
 

PO Box 167 
 

Columbia, SC 29201 
 

(803) 734-9120, Fax (803) 734-9106 
 

jonesls@dnr.sc.gov 

South Dakota 

Michelle Saxman, CFM
 

South Dakota Div. of Emergency 
 

Management 
 

118 W. Capitol Ave. 
 

Pierre, SD 57501 
 

(605) 773-3238, Fax (605) 773-3580 
 

michelle.saxman@state.sd.us 

Tennessee 

Dan Hawk 
 

Tennessee Dept. Econ. & Comm. Dev. 
 

312 8th Ave. N, TN Tower Bldg., 10th Fl. 
 

Nashville, TN 37243-0405 
 

(615) 741-2211, Fax (615) 741-0607 
 

dan.hawk@state.tn.us 

Texas 

Mike Howard, CFM 
 

Texas Natural Resources Consvn. Comm. 
 

P.O. Box 13087 - MC 160 
 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 
 

(512) 239-6155, Fax (512) 239-4770 
 

mhoward@tceq.state.tx.us 

Utah 

Judy Watanabe, CFM 
 

Utah Emergency Management 
 

State Office Bldg., Room 1110 
 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 
 

(801) 538-3750, Fax (801) 538-3770 
 

judywatanabe@utah.gov 

Vermont 

Margaret Torizzo
 

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 
 

103 S. Main St. - Bldg. 10N 
 

Waterbury, VT 05671-0408 
 

(802) 241-3759
 

margaret.torizzo@state.vt.us 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures H-5 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Virginia 

David Gunn, CFM 

Virginia Dept. of Conservation 

203 Governor Street, Suite 206 

Richmond, VA 23219-2019 

(804) 786-1369, Fax (804) 371-2630 

david.gunn@dcr.virginia.gov 

Virgin Islands 

Brent Blyden 
 

Virgin Island Planning & Nat. Res. 
 

C.E. King Airport, Terminal Bldg 2nd 

Floor 

St. Thomas, VI 00802 

(340) 774-3320, Fax (340) 775-5706 

Washington 

Daniel Sokol 

Washington Department of Ecology 

P.O. Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

(360) 407-6796, Fax (360) 407-6902 

dsok461@ecy.wa.gov 

West Virginia 

Robert L. Perry, CFM 

West Virginia Office of Emerg. Svcs. 

1900 Kanawha Blvd, 

Cap Bldg. 1, Rm EB-80 

Charleston, WV 25305-0360 

(304) 965-2331, Fax (304) 965-3216 

robperry@wvoes.state.wv.us 

Wisconsin 

Robert Watson 

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Res. 

101 S. Webster 

Madison, WI 53702 

(608) 266-8039, Fax (608) 264-9200 

robert.watson@dnr.state.wi.us 

Wyoming 

Kim Johnson 

WY Office of Homeland Security 

Herschler Building, 1st East 

122 West 25th St. 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

(307) 777-4910, Fax (307) 635-6017 

jcase@state.wy.us 

H-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

The following contact information is subject to change. For a current list of State Hazard 

Mitigation Officers, see http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/shmo.shtm. 

State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Alabama 

Debbie Peery 

Alabama Emergency Management Agency 

5898 County Road 41 

P.O. Drawer 2160 

Clanton, AL 35046 

(205) 280-2476, Fax (205) 280-2493 

debbiep@ema.alabama.gov 

Alaska 

R. Scott Simmons 

Alaska Department of Homeland Security 

and Emergency Management 

Bldg. 4900, Suite B-214 

P.O. Box 5750 

Ft. Richardson, AK 99505-5750 

(907) 428-7016, Fax (907) 428-7009 

scott_simmons@ak-prepared.com 

American Samoa 

Fa'amausili Pola 

Executive Director 

Territorial Emergency Management 

Coordinating Office 

PO Box 997755 

Pago Pago, AS 96799 

(684) 699-6415, Fax (684) 699-6414 

Arizona 

Darlene Trammell 

Division of Emergency Management 

5636 E. McDowell Road 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

(602) 392-7539, Fax (602) 392-7538 

millert@dem.state.az.us 

Arkansas 

Terry Gray 

Department of Emergency Management 

P.O. Box 758 

HWY 286 Spur 

Conway, AR 72033 

(501) 730-9811, Fax (501) 730-9754 

terry.gray@adem.state.ar.us 

California 

Rebecca Wagoner 

Governor's Office of Emergency Services 

3650 Shriever Avenue 

Mather, CA 95655 

(916) 845-8151, Fax (916) 845-8386 

rebecca_wagoner@oes.ca.gov 

Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands 

Gregorio Guerrero, Acting 

Emergency Management Office 

P.O. Box 825 

Saipan, MP 96950 

(670) 322-9528, Fax (670) 322-7743 

Colorado 

Marilyn Gally 

Office of Emergency Management 

15075 South Golden Road 

Golden, CO 80401-3979 

(303) 273-1775, Fax (303) 273-1795 

marilyn.gally@state.co.us 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures H-7 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Connecticut 

Art Christian 

CT Department of Environmental 

Protection 

79 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

(860) 424-3880, Fax (860) 424-4075 
 

art.christian@po.state.ct.us 

Delaware 

Lloyd Stoeber 
 

Delaware Emergency Management 
 

165 Brick Store Landing Road 
 

Smyrna, DE 19977 
 

(302) 659-2246, Fax (302) 659-6855 
 

lstoebner@state.de.us 

District of Columbia 

Patrice White 
 

District of Columbia Emergency 
 

Management Agency 
 

2000 14th Street, NW, 8th Floor 
 

Washington, DC 20009 
 

(202) 673-2101 x1163 
 

Fax (202) 673-2290 
 

pwhite-oep@dcgov.org 

Florida 

Leroy Thompson 
 

Florida Division of Emergency 
 

Management 
 

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 
 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 
 

(850) 413-9947, Fax (850) 413-9857 
 

leroy.thompson@dca.state.fl.us 

Georgia 

Terry Lunn 
 

Georgia Emergency Management Agency 
 

Post Office Box 18055 
 

Atlanta, GA 30316 
 

(404) 635-7016, Fax (404) 635-7205 
 

tlunn@gema.state.ga.us 

Guam 

Marcus A.C. Aguon 
 

221B Chalan Palasyo 
 

Agana Heights, Guam 96910 
 

(671) 635-9790, Fax (671) 477-3727 
 

maguon@guamhs.org 

Hawaii 

Faye Chambers 
 

State of Hawaii Department of Defense 
 

3949 Diamond Head Road 
 

Honolulu, HI 96816-4495 
 

(808) 733-4300, Fax (808) 733-4137 
 

fchambers@scd.hawaii.gov 

Idaho 

Stephen Weiser 
 

State of Idaho Disaster Services 
 

4040 Guard Street 
 

Building 600 
 

Boise, ID 83705-5004 
 

(208) 334-3460 x329 
 

Fax (208) 334-2322 
 

sweiser@bds.state.id.us 

Illinois 

Ron Davis 
 

Illinois Emergency Management Agency 
 

1035 Outer Park Drive 
 

Springfield, IL 62704 
 

(217) 524-1003, Fax (217) 524-8753 
 

RDavis@iema.state.il.us 

Indiana 

Jan Crider 
 

Department of Homeland Security 
 

Indiana Government Center South 
 

302 West Washington Street, Room E-208A 
 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 
 

(317) 232-3833, Fax (317) 232-4987 
 

jcrider@sema.state.in.us 

H-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Iowa 

Dennis Harper 

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency 

Management Division 

7105 NW 70th Avenue 

Camp Dodge, Bldg. W-4 

Johnston, IA 50131 

(515) 281-3231, Fax (515) 281-7539 

dennis.harper@hlsem.state.ia.us 

Kansas 

Charlie McGonigle (temporary) 

Kansas Division of Emergency 

Management 

2800 Southwest Topeka Blvd. 

Topeka, KS 66611-1287 

(785) 274-1421, Fax (785) 274-7426 

cemcgonigle@agtop.state.ks.us 

Kentucky 

H. Camille Crain 

Kentucky Division of Emergency 

Management 

1121 Louisville Road, Building 1-B 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 607-5768, Fax (502) 607-5740 

heather.crain@ky.ngb.army.mil 

Louisiana 

Jeff Smith 

Louisiana Office of Homeland 

Security & Emergency Preparedness 

7667 Independence Blvd. 

Baton Rouge, LA 70806 

(225) 925-7557, Fax (225) 925-7501 

jsmith@loep.state.la.us 

Maine 

Steven Burgess 

Maine Emergency Mgmt. Agency 

72 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

(207) 624-4400, Fax (207) 287-3178 

steven.p.burgess@maine.gov 

Maryland 

Kimberly Golden-Brandt 

Maryland Emergency Management Agency 

State Emergency Operations Center 

5401 Rue Saint Lo Drive 

Reisterstown, MD 21136 

(410) 517-5108, Fax (410) 517-3610 

Kgolden@mema.state.md.us 

Massachusetts 

Richard Zingarelli, Acting 

Massachusetts Department of Conservation 

and Recreation 

251 Causeway Street 

Boston, MA 02114 

(617) 626-1406, Fax (617) 626-1455 

richard.zingarelli@state.ma.us 

Michigan 

Matt Schnepp 

Emergency Management and Homeland 

Security Division 

Michigan Department of State Police 

4000 Collins Road 

Lansing, MI 48910 

(517) 336-2040, Fax (517)333-4987 

schneppm1@michigan.gov 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures H-9 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Minnesota 

Mary Donohue 

Division of Homeland Security and 

Emergency Management 

444 Cedar Street, Suite 223 

St. Paul, MN 55101-6223 

(651) 201-7427, Fax (651) 296-0459 

lisa.dresser@state.mn.us 

Mississippi 

Bob Boteler 

Mississippi Emergency Management 

Agency 

1410 Riverside Dr. 

Post Office Box 4501 

Jackson, MS 39296 

(601) 366-5706, Fax (601) 965-6215 

bboteler@msema.org 

Missouri 

Sheila Huddleston 

Missouri State Emergency Management 

Agency 

2302 Militia Drive 

P.O. Box 116 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(573) 526-9228, Fax (573) 526-9193 

sheila.huddleston@sema.dps.mo.gov 

Montana 

Larry Akers 

Montana Disaster and Emergency 

Services Division 

1900 Williams street 

P.O. Box 4789 

Ft. Harrison, MT 59602-4789 

(406) 841-3960, Fax (406) 841-3965 

lakers@state.mt.us 

Nebraska 

Lori Moore 

Nebraska Emergency Management Agency 

1300 Military Road 

Lincoln, NE 68508-1090 

(402) 471-7416, Fax (402) 471-7433 

lori.moore@nema.ne.gov 

Nevada 

Elizabeth Ashby 

State of Nevada 

2478 Fairview Drive 

Carson City, NV 89701 

(775) 687-0314, Fax (775) 687-0322 

eashby@dps.state.nv.us 

New Hampshire 

Richard Verville 

Department of Safety 

Bureau of Emergency Management 

State Office Park South 

107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 

(603) 271-2231, Fax (603) 225-7341 

rverville@nhoem.state.nh.us 

Mitigation page: www.nhoem.state.nh.us/ 

mitigation/default.htm 

New Jersey 

Sgt. First Class Paul Miller 

New Jersey Office of Emergency 

Management 

P.O. Box 7068, River Road 

West Trenton, NJ 08628-0068 

(609) 963-6963, Fax (609) 883-3862 

lpp4476@gw.njsp.org 

H-10 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

New Mexico 

Bill Ewing 

New Mexico Office of Emergency 

Services & Security 

P.O. Box 1628 
 

13 Bataan Blvd. 
 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-1628 
 

(505) 476-9615, Fax (505) 476-9637 
 

bewing@dps.state.nm.us 

New York 

Susan Bergmann 
 

New York State Emergency Management 
 

Office 
 

1220 Washington Avenue, Suite 101 
 

Building # 22 
 

Albany, NY 12226 
 

(518) 457-9983, Fax (518) 457-7528 
 

susan.bergmann@semo.state.ny.us 

North Carolina 

Randy Mundt 
 

North Carolina Division of Emergency 
 

Management 
 

1830-B Tillery Place 
 

Raleigh, NC 27604-1356 
 

(919) 715-8000 x275 
 

Fax (919) 715-9763 
 

rmundt@ncem.org 

North Dakota 

Lonnie Hoffer 

North Dakota Emergency Management 

P.O. Box 5511 
 

Fraine Barrecks Lane, Bldg. 35 
 

Bismarck, ND 59505 
 

(701) 328-8259, Fax (701) 328-8184 
 

lhoffer@.state.nd.us 

Ohio 

Chad Berginnis 
 

Ohio Emergency Management Agency 
 

2855 West Dublin-Granville Road 
 

Columbus, OH 43235-2206 
 

(614) 799-3539, Fax (614)799-3526 

smerick@dps.state.oh.us 

Oklahoma 

Connie Dill 
 

Oklahoma Emergency Management Agency 
 

1301 Cornell Parkway 
 

Suite 800 
 

Oklahoma City, OK 73108 
 

(405) 949-8645, Fax (405) 949-8648 
 

connie.dill@dem.state.ok.us 

Oregon 

Dennis J. Sigrist 
 

Office of Emergency Management 
 

3225 State Street 
 

Salem, OR 97301 
 

(503) 378-2911 ext 22247 
 

Fax (503) 373-7833 
 

dsigrist@oem.state.or.us 

Pennsylvania 

Don Smith 

Pennsylvania Emergency Management 

Agency 

2605 Interstate Drive 

P.O. Box 3221 
 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-3221 
 

(717) 651-2159, Fax (717) 651-2150 
 

dosmith@pema.state.pa.us 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures H-11 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Puerto Rico 

Ramon Vales 

Director 

PRSEMA 

PO Box 9066597 

San Juan, PR 00906-6597 

(787) 724-0124, Fax (787) 725-0020 

rvales@aemead.gobierno.pr 

Rhode Island 

Lawrence Macedo, Acting 

Rhode Island Emergency Management 

Agency 

645 New London Ave. 

Cranston, RI 02920 

(401) 946-9996, Fax (401) 944-1891 

lawrence.macedo@ri-arng.ngb.army.mil 

South Carolina 

Amanda K. Loach 

South Carolina Emergency Management 

Division 

2779 Fish Hatchery Road 

West Columbia, SC 29172 

(803) 737-8665, Fax (803) 737-8570 

aloach@emd.state.sc.us 

South Dakota 

Cindy Maszk 

South Dakota Division of Emergency 

Management 

118 W. Capital 

Pierre, SD 57501 

(605) 773-3231, Fax (605) 773-3580 

cindy.maszk@state.sd.us 

Tennessee 

Judy Huff 

Tennessee Emergency Management Agency 

3041 Sidco Drive 

Nashville, Tennessee 37204 

(615) 741-1345, Fax (615) 532-9222 

jhuff@tnema.org 

Texas 

Greg Pekar 

Governor's Division of Emergency 

Management Agency 

P.O. Box 4087 

Austin, TX 78773-0226 

(512) 424-2429, Fax (512) 424-2444 

gregory.pekar@txdps.state.tx.us 

Utah 

Nancy Barr 

Utah Emergency Services and Homeland 

Security 

State Office Building, Room 1110 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114 

(801) 538-3721, Fax (801) 538-3772 

nbarr@des.utah.gov 

Vermont 

Ray Doherty 

Vermont Emergency Management Agency 

Department of Public Safety 

Waterbury State Complex 

103 S. Main Street 

Waterbury, VT 05671 

(802) 241-5258, Fax (802) 241-5556 

rdoherty@dps.state.vt.us 

H-12 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

Virginia 

Deborah Mills 

Department of Emergency Management 

10501 Trade Court 

Richmond, VA 23236-3713 

(804) 897-6500 x6563 

Fax (804)897-6526 

dmills@vdem.state.va.us 

Virgin Islands 

Jackie Heyliger (temporary) 

Virgin Island Management and Budget 

Office 

41 Norre Gade 

St. Thomas, VI 00820 

(340) 774-0750, Fax (340)778-8980 

ccmagras@altavista.com 

Washington 

Martin E. Best 

Washington Military Department 

Emergency Management Division 

MS: TA-20, Bldg 20 

Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122 

(253) 512-7073, Fax (253) 512-7205 

m.best@emd.wa.gov 

West Virginia 

Barry J. Macciocca 

West Virginia Office of Emergency 

Services 

Building 1, Room EB-80 

1900 Kanawha Blvd., East 

Charleston, WV 25305 

(304) 558-5380, Fax (304)344-4538 

bmaccio@wvoes.state.wv.us 

Wisconsin 

Roxanne Gray 

Wisconsin Division of Emergency 

Management 

2400 Wright Street 

P.O. Box 7865 

Madison, WI 53707-7865 

(608) 242-3211, Fax (608) 242-3248 

roxanne.gray@dma.state.wi.us 

Wyoming 

Pat Bersie 

Wyoming Department of Homeland Security 

122 W. 25 th Street 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

(307) 777-4917, Fax (307) 635-6017 

pbersi@state.wy.us 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures H-13 
Appendix H – NFIP State Coordinating Agencies and State Hazard Mitigation Officers 

This page left intentionally blank. 

H-14 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix I – Glossary 

APPENDIX I – GLOSSARY 

A Zones 	 A Zones are areas within the Special Flood Hazard Area identified 

on FIRMs as an area that has a 1 percent or greater annual chance 

of flooding. The A Zone may be identified on a FIRM with one of 

the following designations: AE, A1-30, AO, AH, or A. These 

areas include riverine floodplains, lacustrine (lake) floodplains, 

and coastal floodplains landward of V Zones. 

Approximate A Zones 	 Areas not studied by detailed hydrologic/hydraulic methods. These 

areas are shown on a FIRM as “unnumbered A zones” and 

“approximate 100-year flood zones” on the Flood Boundary and 

Floodway Map (FBFM). 

Base Flood Elevation 

(BFE) 

The water surface elevation resulting from the base flood, (i.e., a 

flood that has a 1 percent chance of equaling or exceeding that 

level in any given year [100-year flood]). 

Construction Type 

Concrete Walls constructed of concrete block 

Frame Walls constructed of wood or light gauge metal studs, with wood, 

vinyl, or aluminum siding 

Masonry Walls constructed of brick 

Manufactured home Prefabricated frame structure constructed on a transportable frame 

Disaster Mitigation Act 

of 2000 (DMA 2000) 

The impetus for states and communities to undertake natural 

hazard mitigation planning was given a significant boost on 

October 30, 2000, when the President signed the Disaster 

Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390). To maintain 

eligibility for pre- and post-disaster grant funds, communities need 

to have a mitigation plan approved by FEMA that identifies risks 

from natural hazards and includes a strategy to address these 

problems. 

Dry floodproofing 	 Measures that eliminate or reduce the potential for flood damage 

by keeping floodwaters out of the structure. Examples include 

installation of watertight shields for doors and windows, 

reinforcement of walls to withstand the hydrostatic and 

hydrodynamic pressures and debris impact, and use of sealants to 

reduce seepage of floodwaters through walls. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures I-1 
Appendix I – Glossary 

Elevation Datum Elevation datum, or datum plane, is an arbitrary surface that serves 

as a common reference for the elevations of points above or below 

it. Elevations are expressed in terms of feet, meters, or other units 

of measure and are identified as negative or positive depending on 

whether they are above or below the datum plane. Three common 

elevation datum are mean sea level (msl), National Geodetic 

Vertical Datum (NGVD), and North American Vertical Datum 

(NAVD). 

Erosion The removal of soil that lowers the ground surface elevation 

across an area. 

Flash flood A flood that rises and falls very quickly and is usually 

characterized by high flow velocities. Flash floods often result 

from intense rainfall over a small area and can also occur in highly 

urbanized areas where pavements and other impervious 

improvements increase the volume and speed of runoff. 

Flood fringe The portion of the floodplain that lies beyond the floodway and 

serves as a temporary storage area for floodwaters during a flood. 

This section receives waters that are generally shallower and of 

lower velocities than those of the floodway. 

Flood Hazard Boundary 

Map (FHBM) 

An official map of a community published by FEMA that 

delineates the approximate boundary of the floodplain. An FHBM 

is generally the initial map provided to the community and is 

usually eventually superseded by a FIRM. 

Flood Insurance Rate 

Map (FIRM) 

An official map of a community, on which the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency has delineated both the special hazard areas 

and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. The map 

shows the extent of the base floodplain and may also display the 

extent of the floodway, as well as other relevant information such 

as Base Flood Elevations. 

Flood Insurance Study 

(FIS) 

An engineering study developed in conjunction with the FIRM. 

The FIS, also known as a flood elevation study, frequently 

contains a narrative of the flood history of a community and 

discusses the engineering methods used to develop the FIRM. The 

study also contains flood profiles for studied flooding sources and 

is used to provide accurate Base Flood Elevations for some areas. 

Floodplain 

Floodplain Management 

Regulations 

Any land area susceptible to being inundated by the 1 % flood. 

Regulations for development and land use within floodprone 

areas. Floodplain management regulations in communities that 

participate in the National Flood Insurance Program must be 

compliant with the NFIP requirements described in 44 CFR 60.3. 

I-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix I – Glossary 

Flood Protection Elevation of the highest flood, including freeboard that a 

Elevation (FPE) retrofitting method is intended to protect against. 

Floodway 	 The channel of a river or other watercourse and that portion of the 

adjacent floodplain that must remain open to permit passage of the 

base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface 

elevation more than a designated height (usually 1 foot). 

Foundation Type 

Basement 	 Any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground 

level) on all sides. 

Crawlspace 	 Low space below the first floor of a house, where there has not 

been excavation deep enough for a basement, but where there is 

often access for pipes, ducts, and utilities. 

Pier 	 An upright support member of a building with a height limited to a 

maximum of three times its least lateral dimension. It is designed 

and constructed to function as an independent structural element in 

supporting and transmitting building and environmental loads to 

the ground. 

Pile 	 An upright support member of a building, usually long and slender 

in shape, driven or jetted into the ground by mechanical means and 

primarily supported by friction between the pile and the 

surrounding earth. 

Post or Column 	 Upright support units for a building, set in pre-dug holes and 

backfilled with compacted material. Posts are usually made of 

wood and columns are usually of concrete or masonry 

construction. 

Slab-on-grade 	 A structural design where the first floor sits directly on a poured 

concrete slab, which sits directly on the ground. 

Freeboard	 An additional amount of height above the Base Flood Elevation 

used as a factor of safety (e.g., 2 feet above the Base Flood) in 

determining the level at which a structure's lowest floor must be 

elevated or floodproofed to be in accordance with state or local 

community floodplain management regulations. 

Hazard Mitigation Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to 

life and property from a hazard event. 

Hydraulics	 Hydraulics is used to determine how a quantity of water will flow 

through a channel or floodplain. Hydraulic analysis combines: 

• Flood hydrology, or discharges, 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures I-3 
Appendix I – Glossary 

•	 Cross-section data on how much area there is to carry the 

flood, and 

•	 Stream characteristics such as roughness, slope, locations, 

and sizes of structures. 

Hydrodynamic Loads Forces imposed on an object, such as a structure, by water moving 

around it. Among these loads are positive frontal pressure against 

the structure, drag effect along the sides and negative pressure on 

the downstream side. 

Hydrology Hydrology deals with the distribution and circulation of water in 

the atmosphere, on land surfaces, and underground, and is used to 

determine flood flow frequencies. A hydrologic analysis 

determines the amount of rainfall that will stay in a watershed and 

the rate at which the remaining amount of rainfall will reach the 

stream. 

Hydrostatic Loads 

Increased Cost of 

Compliance (ICC) 

Forces imposed on a surface, such as a wall or floor slab, by a 

standing mass of water. The water pressure increases with the 

square of the water depth. 

NFIP flood insurance coverage for expenses that a property owner 

must incur, above and beyond the cost to repair the physical 

damage the structure actually sustained from a flooding event, to 

comply with mitigation requirements of state or local floodplain 

management ordinance or laws. Acceptable mitigation measures 

are elevation, floodproofing, relocation, demolition, or any 

combination thereof (Flood Insurance Manual, May 2003 [revised 

May 2004]). 

Levee 

Map Modernization 

Market Value 

Mitigation 

Mitigation Planning 

Manmade structures, usually an earthern embankment, designed 

and constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices to 

contain, control, or divert the flow of water to provide protection 

from temporary flooding. 

Efforts being made by FEMA to update flood maps for the Nation 

to digital format and streamline FEMA’s responses to requests to 

revise them. 

The value of a structure based on the estimated price it would be 

sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer in the current real estate 

market. 

Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to 

life and property from a hazard event. 

Hazard mitigation planning is the process of figuring out how to 

reduce or eliminate the loss of life and property damage resulting 

from natural hazards like floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes. 

I-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix I – Glossary 

National Flood 

Insurance Program 

(NFIP) 

Established in 1968 to help flood victims recover from the effects 

of flooding (Pub. L. 90-448, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the NFIP is 

administered by FEMA. The NFIP is a government program that 

provides public benefits that go beyond what private sector 

insurance could achieve. Those who are at risk pay toward their 

own recovery so the financial burden is shifted away from disaster 

assistance programs funded by the general taxpayer. Flood 

insurance premium payments go into the National Flood Insurance 

Fund (NFIF), which in turn is used to pay claims resulting from 

flood damages. Those individuals with a flood insurance policy 

can receive the resources needed to clean and repair or replace 

their damaged property. 

The concept of the NFIP is that flood insurance is made available 

in communities that regulate development in flood-hazard areas. 

In return for adoption and enforcement of the minimum NFIP 

regulations, the NFIP insures existing buildings with “subsidized” 

rates (i.e., flood insurance premium rates below the true risk based 

cost of the insurance coverage). The program has proven 

successful in reducing flood losses, especially to buildings 

constructed after communities began enforcing their regulations. It 

is estimated that over $1 billion in damage is avoided each year 

because of the NFIP. The program has also saved disaster 

assistance programs billions of dollars. 

For additional information on the NFIP, see the NFIP website 

address, http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm. 

Post-FIRM structure For insurance rating purposes, a post-FIRM building was 

constructed or substantially improved after December 31, 1974, or 

after the effective date of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map of a 

community, whichever is later. A post-FIRM building in a 

participating community is required to meet the National Flood 

Insurance Program’s minimum Regular Program flood protection 

standards. 

Pre-FIRM structure For insurance rating purposes, a pre-FIRM building was 

constructed or substantially improved on or before December 31, 

1974, or before the effective date of the initial Flood Insurance 

Rate Map of the community, whichever is later. Most pre-FIRM 

buildings were constructed without taking the flood hazard into 

account. 

Repetitive Loss Repetitive Loss Properties are properties where two or more 

Properties claims of more than $1,000 have been paid by the NFIP in any 

consecutive 10-year period since 1978. 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures I-5 
Appendix I – Glossary 

Scour The removal of soil around objects that obstruct flow, such as 

foundation walls. 

Severe Repetitive Loss Severe repetitive loss properties are defined in the BunningProperties Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 as 

insured repetitive loss properties that have received multiple flood 

insurance claims: 

1. Single-family properties. In the case of a property 

consisting of one to four residences, such term means a 

property that: 

a. Is covered under a contract for flood insurance made 

available under this title; and 

b. Has incurred flood-related damage: 

i. For which four or more separate claims payments 

have been made under flood insurance coverage 

under this title, with the amount of each such claim 

exceeding $5,000, and with the cumulative amount 

of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or 

ii. For which at least two separate claims payments 

have been made under such coverage, with the 

cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the 

value of the property. 

2. Multifamily properties. In the case of a property consisting of 

five or more residences, such term shall have such meaning as the 

Director shall by regulation provide. 

Special Flood Hazard An area within a floodplain having a 1 percent or greater chance of 

Area (SFHA) flood occurrence in any given year (100-year floodplain); 

represented on Flood Insurance Rate Maps by shaded areas with 

zone designations that include the letter A or V. 

Substantial Damage (SD) 

Substantial 

Improvement (SI) 

Substantial Damage is defined as damage of any origin sustained 

by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its 

before-damage conditions would equal or exceed 50 percent of the 

market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 

Substantial Improvement is any reconstruction, rehabilitation, 

addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which 

equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure 

before to the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term 

includes structures that have incurred “substantial” damage, 

regardless of the actual repair work performed. 

I-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix I – Glossary 

V Zones 	 V Zones are areas identified on FIRMs as Zones VE, V1-30, or V. 

These areas, also known as Coastal High Hazard Areas, are areas 

along the coast that have a 1 percent or greater annual chance of 

flooding from storm surge and waves greater than 3 feet in height, 

as well as being subject to significant wind forces. 

Wet floodproofing 	 Permanent or contingent measures applied to a structure and/or its 

contents that prevent or provide resistance to damage from 

flooding by allowing floodwaters to enter the structure. Such 

measures include the design of openings for intentional flooding 

of enclosed areas below the DFE, use of flood-resistant building 

materials below the DFE, and protection of the structure and its 

contents (including utilities). 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures I-7 
Appendix I – Glossary 

This page left intentionally blank. 

I-8 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix J – Acronyms 

ADA 
 

APA 
 

BCA 
 

BCR 
 

BFE 
 

CFR 
 

CIS 
 

CR 
 

CRS 
 

CSB 
 

DFE 
 

DFIRM 
 

DHS 
 

DMA 2000 
 

EC 
 

EMI 
 

FBFM 
 

FEMA 
 

FHBM 
 

FHWA 
 

FIRA 
 

FIRM 
 

FIS 
 

FMA 
 

FPE 
 

fps 

ft 

APPENDIX J – ACRONYMS 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

American Planning Association 

Benefit/Cost Analysis 

Benefit/Cost Ratio 

Base Flood Elevation 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Community Information System 

Claims Representative 

Community Rating System 

Community Status Book 

Design Flood Elevation 

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map 

Department of Homeland Security 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 

Elevation Certificate 

Emergency Management Institute 

Flood Boundary and Floodway Map 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Flood Hazard Boundary Map 

Federal Highway Administration 

Flood Insurance Reform Act 

Flood Insurance Rate Map 

Flood Insurance Study 

Flood Mitigation Assistance 

Flood Protection Elevation 

feet per second 

feet 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures J-1 
Appendix J – Acronyms 

FY 
 

GIS 
 

H+H 
 

HMGP 
 

HUD 
 

HVAC 
 

ICC 
 

IHP 
 

LAG 
 

LSU 
 

msl 

NAVD 
 

NCDC 
 

NFIF 
 

NFIP 
 

NFIRA 
 

NFMDCT 
 

NGVD 
 

NHC 
 

NOAA 
 

NRCS 
 

NRHP 
 

NSF 
 

NT 
 

PA 
 

PDM 
 

PNP 
 

POC 
 

RFC 
 

Fiscal Year 

Geographic Information Systems 

hydraulics and hydrologic 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems 

Increased Cost of Compliance 

Individuals and Households Program 

lowest adjacent exterior grade 

Louisiana State University 

mean sea level 

North American Vertical Datum 

National Climatic Data Center 

National Flood Insurance Fund 

National Flood Insurance Program 

National Flood Insurance Reform Act 

National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool (“National Tool”) 

National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

National Hurricane Center 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Resources Conservation Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

National Science Foundation 

National Tool (see also NFMDCT) 

Public Assistance 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

Private Non-Profit 

Point of Contact 

Repetitive Flood Claims 

J-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix J – Acronyms 

RL 
 

SBA 
 

SD 
 

SFHA 
 

SFIP 
 

SHMO 
 

SHPO 
 

SI 
 

sq ft 

SRL 
 

THPO 
 

TVA 
 

URA 
 

USACE 
 

USC 
 

USGS 
 

WYO 
 

Repetitive Loss 

Small Business Administration 

Substantial Damage 

Special Flood Hazard Area 

Standard Flood Insurance Policy 

State Hazard Mitigation Officer 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Substantial Improvement 

square feet 

Severe Repetitive Loss 

Tribal Historical Preservation Office 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Uniform Relocation Assistance 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

United States Code 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Write-Your-Own 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures J-3 
Appendix J – Acronyms 

This page intentionally left blank. 

J-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix K – References 

APPENDIX K − REFERENCES 

FEMA Publications 

FEMA publications can be ordered from the FEMA Publications warehouse, by any of 

the following methods. 

Mail: 

FEMA Distribution Center 

P.O. Box 2012 

8231 Stayton Drive 

Jessup, MD 20794-2012 

Telephone: 1 (800) 480-2520 

Fax: (301) 362-5335 

FEMA 55 
 

FEMA 85 
 

FEMA 102 
 

FEMA 114 
 

FEMA 213 
 

FEMA 234 
 

FEMA 259 
 

FEMA 265 
 

Coastal Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of Planning, 

Siting, Designing, Constructing and Maintaining Residential Buildings 

in Coastal Areas Volume I, II and III. (June 2000) 

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/fema55.shtm 

Manufactured Homes in Flood Hazard Areas: A Multi-Hazard 

Foundation and Installation Guide. (August 2005) 

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/pubs/lib85.shtm 

Floodproofing Non-Residential Structures. (May 1986) 

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1413 

Design Manual for Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures 

(1986) 

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1414 

Answers to Questions About Substantially Damaged Buildings. (May 

1991) http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/pubs/lib213.shtm 

Repairing Your Flooded Home. (August 1992) 

http://www.redcross.org/static/file_cont333_lang0_150.pdf 

Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone 

Residential Structures (June 2001) 

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/pubs/lib259.shtm 

Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas. (July 

1995) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fhm/frm_zna.pdf 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures K-1 
Appendix K – References 

FEMA 301 
 

FEMA 312 
 

FEMA 317 
 

FEMA 345 
 

FEMA 347 
 

FEMA 348 
 

FEMA 386-1 
 

FEMA 386-2 
 

FEMA 386-3 
 

FEMA 386-4 
 

FEMA 386-6 
 

FEMA 386-7 
 

National Flood Insurance Program’s Increased Cost of Compliance 

Coverage Guidance for State and Local Officials. (September 2003) 

http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/icc.shtm 

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1532 

Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House 

From Flooding (June 1998) 

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/rfit.shtm 

Property Acquisition Handbook for Local Communities (October 1998) 

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/resources/acqhandbook.shtm 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Desk Reference (October 1999) 

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hmgp/index.shtm 

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1472 

Above the Flood: Elevating Your Floodprone House (May 2000) 

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/recover/fema347.shtm 

Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage (November 1999) 

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/pubs/pbuffd.shtm 

Getting Started: Building Support for Mitigation Planning (September 

2002) http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto1.shtm 

Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses 

(August 2001) http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto2.shtm 

Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and 

Implementing Strategies (April 2003) 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto3.shtm 

Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan 

(August 2003) http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto4.shtm 

Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations 

into Hazard Mitigation Planning (May 2005) 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto6.shtm 

Integrating Manmade Hazards Into Mitigation Planning. (September 

2003) http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto7.shtm 

K-2 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix K – References 

FEMA 386-8 
 

FEMA 480 
 

FEMA 497 
 

FEMA 499 
 

FEMA 511 
 

FEMA 550 
 

FEMA 
 

TB 1-93 
 

FEMA 
 

TB 4-93 
 

FEMA 
 

TB 7-93 
 

FEMA 

TB 10-01 

Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (August 2006) 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/howto8.shtm 

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Floodplain Management 
 

Requirements: A Study Guide and Desk Reference for Local Officials
 

(February 2005) 

http://www.floods.org/Certification/FEMA_480_TOC.asp 

National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool Guide (May 2005) 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/data_tool.shtm 

Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction Technical Fact Sheet 

Series (August 2005) 

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema499.shtm 

Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding (June 2005) 

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/pubs/flood-damage.shtm 

Recommended Residential Construction for the Gulf Coast: Building on 

Strong and Safe Foundations (July 2006) 

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1853 

Openings in Foundation Walls for Buildings Located in Special Flood 

Hazard Area 

http://www.fema.gov/fima/techbul or 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/job2.pdf 

Elevator Installation for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard 

Areas in Accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program 

http://www.fema.gov/fima/techbul or 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/job8.pdf 

Wet Floodproofing Requirements for Structures Located in Special 

Flood Hazard Areas 

http://www.fema.gov/fima/techbul or 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/job14.pdf 

Ensuring That Structures Built on Fill In or Near Special Flood Hazard 

Areas Are Reasonably Safe from Flooding 

http://www.fema.gov/fima/techbul or 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/tb1001.pdf 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures K-3 
Appendix K – References 

Crawlspace Construction for Buildings Located in Special Flood 

Hazard Areas: National Flood Insurance Program Interim Guidance. 

FEMA 

TB 11-01 

http://www.fema.gov/fima/techbul or 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/fima/tb1101.pdf 

USACE Publications 

To obtain copies of these publications, visit the USACE National Floodproofing 

Committee website http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwp/NFPC/nfpc.htm 

or write to the following address: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Publications Depot 

Attn.: CEIM-IM-PD 

2803 52nd Avenue 

Hyattsville, MD 20781-1102 

USACE Flood Proofing - How to Evaluate Your Options (July 1993)

http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecw-p/NFPC/fphow/ace8toc.htm 

USACE Flood Proofing Techniques, Programs and References. (May 2000)

http://www.usace.army.mil//cw/cecw-p/NFPC/fptpr/fptpr.htm 

USACE Local Flood Proofing Programs (June 1994) 

http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecw-p/NFPC/fplfpp/Ace7TOC.htm 

USACE Raising and Moving a Slab-on-Grade House with Slab Attached 

(1990) 

http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecw-p/NFPC/fpslab/ace2toc.htm 

Other Publications 

ASFPM 
 

FEMA 
 

FEMA CRS 
 

FEMA 

NFIP/CRS 

No Adverse Impact: A Tool Kit for Common Sense Floodplain 

Management (2003) 

http://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/NAI_Toolkit_2003.pdf 

Promoting Mitigation in Louisiana: Performance Analysis (2002) 

www.fema.gov/pdf/casestudys/performance.pdf 

Example Plans (2006) 

http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CRS/ 

CRS Credit for Drainage System Maintenance 

http://www.training.fema.gov/emiweb/CRS/m7s5main.htm 

K-4 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 
Appendix K – References 

Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures K-5 

Fraser et al. Implementing Floodplain Land Acquisition Programs in Urban 

Localities (December 2003) 

http://www.unc.edu/~fraser18/publications/Floddplain%20Project%2

0Report.Final.pdf 

Marshall and 

Swift 

Home Repair and Remodel 2007 Cost Guide

http://www.marshallswift.com/

Morris Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard Areas. (1997) American 

Planning Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service Report

Number 473 

http://www.planning.org/APAStore/Search/Default.aspx?p=2398 

RS Means Building Construction Cost Data (2006) http://www.rsmeans.com/

RS Means Contractor’s Pricing Guide (2006) http://www.rsmeans.com// 

Schwab, et al. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Redevelopment. (1998) 

American Planning Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service 

Report Number 483/484

http://www.planning.org/APAStore/Search/Default.aspx?p=2406 

Websites

American Planning 

Association http://www.planning.org/ 

Association of State 

Floodplain Managers http://www.floods.org/home/default.aspwww.floods.org

FEMA http://www.fema.gov/

FEMA Map Service Center http://store.msc.fema.gov

FEMA National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP) http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/

FEMA NFIP Answers to 

Questions About the NFIP http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/qanda.shtm

FEMA Planning Resource 

Center http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm

FEMA Region Offices http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm 
Appendix K – References 

K-6 Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures 

Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) 

Hydraulics Engineering 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/index.cfm

Louisiana State 

University’s (LSU) 

Extension Center 

http://www.louisianafloods.org

National Climatic Data 

Center – Storm Events 

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgiwin/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms

National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation 

Officers 

http://www.ncshpo.org/stateinfolist/FullList.htm 

National Hurricane Center 

– Tropical Prediction 

Center 

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov

National Oceanographic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration – Flooding 

Page 

http://www.noaa.gov/floods.html

National Park Service 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tribal/thpo.htm 

Tennessee Valley Authority http://www.tva.gov 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) 

Divisions and Districts 

http://www.usace.army.mil/divdistmap.html

USACE National Flood 

Proofing Committee http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecw-p/NFPC/nfpc.htm

United States Geological 

Survey Water Resources of 

the United States 

http://water.usgs.gov/index.html