Download:
pdf |
pdf1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Compliance Audit Program
19
Interim Guidance
20
June 2023
21
i.
22
This page intentionally left blank
ii
23
Table of Contents
24
1.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
25
1.1 Purpose and Document Use ................................................................................................................ 1
26
1.2 NFIP Compliance Audit Redesign Background ................................................................................... 2
27
1.3 Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 2
28
1.3.1 Continuous Feedback and Process Improvements................................................................. 2
29
1.4 Objectives and Intended Outcomes .................................................................................................... 3
30
1.5 Goals of the NFIP Compliance Audit Redesign ................................................................................... 3
31
1.6 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................. 4
32
1.7 Challenges of the CAC/CAV Process.................................................................................................... 4
33
1.8 Equity Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 5
34
2.
The NFIP Compliance Audit Program ................................................................................................................. 7
35
2.1 NFIP Compliance Audit Workflow......................................................................................................... 7
36
2.2 What’s In and What’s Out..................................................................................................................... 8
37
2.3 Value of the New NFIP Compliance Audit............................................................................................ 9
38
3.
Phase 1 Audit ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
39
3.1 Primary Auditing Themes.................................................................................................................... 11
40
3.2 Phase 1 Audit Overview ...................................................................................................................... 12
41
3.3 NFIP Compliance Audit Toolkit ........................................................................................................... 14
42
3.4 Preparation Stage ............................................................................................................................... 15
43
3.4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 15
44
3.4.2 Community Selection .............................................................................................................. 17
45
3.4.3 Self Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 17
46
3.4.4 Ordinance Review .................................................................................................................... 19
47
3.5 Diagnostic Assessment Stage ............................................................................................................ 20
48
3.5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 20
49
3.5.2 Community Contact ................................................................................................................. 22
50
3.5.3 Enhanced Community Contact ............................................................................................... 29
51
3.6 Full Evaluation Stage .......................................................................................................................... 30
52
3.6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 30
iii
53
3.6.2 Key Elements of the Full Evaluation Tool............................................................................... 32
54
3.7 Transition From Phase 1 to Phase 2 ................................................................................................. 37
55
4.
Phase 2 Audit Follow-Up & Technical Assistance........................................................................................... 39
56
4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 39
57
4.2 Deficiencies and the National Violations Tracker (Future)............................................................... 40
58
4.3 Audit Follow-Up & Assistance Chronology ......................................................................................... 41
59
4.4 Carry Over of Violations/Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 41
60
4.5 Information Requests ......................................................................................................................... 42
61
4.5.1 Community Request Procedures ............................................................................................ 42
62
4.5.2 Response ................................................................................................................................. 42
63
4.5.3 Request for Reconsideration .................................................................................................. 42
64
5.
65
Appendix A: Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Phase 3 Enforcement ......................................................................................................................................... 44
66
iv
67
1. Introduction
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq.), prohibits the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from providing flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) to a community unless the community participates in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing
floodplain management regulations that meet minimum NFIP floodplain management criteria. As part of this
responsibility, FEMA may identify deficiencies in a community’s floodplain management program and identify
structures or other development that are in violation of the community’s floodplain management regulations.
The NFIP Compliance Audit Program (formerly known as Community Assistance Visit (CAV)/Community
Assistance Contact (CAC)) serves as a vital tool for monitoring compliance of NFIP-participating communities.
76
77
78
79
80
Community compliance with minimum NFIP requirements ensures the sound financial framework of the
NFIP and minimizes strain on the Disaster Relief Fund—reducing both insured and uninsured flood losses on
the order of nearly $2.5 billion annually. Auditing community compliance and providing technical assistance
to resolve floodplain management program deficiencies and violations is the core of the FEMA Floodplain
Management Program’s (FPM’s) purpose and mission.
81
The NFIP Compliance Audit Program
82
The NFIP Compliance Audit is a three-phase process to
83
1. Audit a community’s compliance with NFIP regulations at a point in time,
84
85
2. Follow-up and provide technical assistance to address floodplain management program
deficiencies and violations after the audit, and
86
3. Enforce floodplain management requirements when necessary.
87
1.1 Purpose and Document Use
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
This interim guidance establishes baseline procedures for conducting the NFIP Compliance Audit Program in
communities that participate in the NFIP. At the request of FPM leadership, this document focuses primarily
on the auditing phase of the NFIP Compliance Audit process (Phase 1). Audit Follow-up & Technical
Assistance (Phase 2) and Enforcement (Phase 3) will be addressed in FY23. This guidance is intended to
support FEMA Headquarters (HQ) staff in socializing new elements of the redesigned process with internal
stakeholders (e.g., Office of Chief Council, Paperwork Reduction Act officers, etc.) and lays out the vision for
the future audit process. The CAV/CAC process is authorized by 44 CFR Section 60.1b and Section 59.2. At
present time, the CAC/CAV guidance (FEMA F-776) remains the principal guidance for FEMA and state
Auditors conducting compliance audits. This is a living document and will be updated as FPM progresses
with redesigning key elements of the future audit process.
98
For any questions, please contact Sarah Owen, NFIP Program Analyst (Sarah.Owen@fema.dhs.gov).
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
1
99
1.2 NFIP Compliance Audit Redesign Background
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Structures that are built to meet or exceed NFIP minimum floodplain management standards incur 65% less
flood damage on average (FEMA website; Individuals - Floodplain Management Resources | FEMA.gov). This
leads the nation to saving approximately $2.4 billion in avoided flood losses each year and $100 billion over
the last 40 years. Yet over the last five (5) fiscal years, only 34% of the 22,500+ NFIP-participating
communities have been audited for compliance. Furthermore, the risks of non-compliance are increasing
each year with the rising frequency and severity of disasters. If communities are not held accountable for
compliance with NFIP standards, then FEMA can expect disaster suffering to continue to rise. In light of
these challenges, FEMA recognized the need to improve its NFIP compliance auditing program to increase
nationwide transparency, consistency, and accountability in how a community’s floodplain management
program is evaluated and the ability to track and understand compliance changes over time.
110
1.3 Approach
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
FPM initiated a multi-year effort in FY20 to increase local accountability through a redesign of the CAC and
CAV delivery model. During the first year of the NFIP Compliance Audit Redesign, FPM staff from HQ and the
Regions, as part of the FPM Compliance Committee, reimagined the CAC/CAV process to identify challenges
and needs, explore industry best practices and solutions, and redesign key elements of the process. This
effort culminated in development of the new “Progressive Audit Framework” (described in greater detail in
Section 2 of this guidance document). In FY21, the Compliance Committee continued its work by developing
new Auditor tools to standardize the compliance audit process, including the Community Self Assessment
and Full Evaluation tools. In FY22, the Compliance Committee further built out the new process by
developing the Diagnostic Assessment Tool and co-created the design and implementation of the NFIP
Compliance Audit Pilot in collaboration with select states through the State Support Services Element of the
Community Assistance Program. The pilot set out to test a suite of new audit scoring tools and collect
feedback. In future years, the Compliance Committee will focus on developing solutions to address key
challenges with the Audit Follow-up, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement phases of the new process, as
well as creating an Auditor training program and national rollout strategy.
125
1.3.1 Continuous Feedback and Process Improvements
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
The redesign of the NFIP Compliance Audit featured an agile innovation approach (see Figure 1). The
Compliance Committee engaged regularly in a series of design sprints and meetings that encouraged
purposeful thinking on the end customer—local officials and the communities they serve. This method
encourages new ideas and collaboration and promotes iterative improvement and feedback. As part of the
future rollout of the new audit process, FEMA envisions a similar agile approach. Stakeholder feedback will
continually be collected and analyzed to diagnose problems, develop solutions, and implement
enhancements to the process to further strengthen the NFIP Compliance Audit.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
2
133
134
FIGURE 1: AGILE APPROACH TO THE NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT REDESIGN
135
1.4 Objectives and Intended Outcomes
136
137
To ensure a clear vision and strategy for addressing the challenges related to the previous CAC/CAV process,
the Compliance Committee devised the following objectives and outcomes to guide their effort.
138
Objective
139
140
141
Improve engagement with communities to ensure they adopt and enforce NFIP minimum
standards in the pre- and post-disaster environment (Object 1.1(B) of the 2019 FPM MultiYear Strategy)
142
143
Intended Outcomes
144
145
Provide consistent guidance and improved procedures for auditing a community’s floodplain
management mitigation efforts in alignment with the NFIP
146
147
Improve the audit process, provide more actionable guidance to staff executing CAVs, and
encourage higher community compliance
148
1.5 Goals of the NFIP Compliance Audit Redesign
149
150
The Compliance Committee has been tasked with reimagining how FPM can increase the number of audits
of NFIP communities from 34% to 60% in a 5-year period. Figure 2 shows the goals of this effort.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
3
151
152
FIGURE 2: NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT REDESIGN G OALS
153
1.6 Guiding Principles
154
155
156
157
Guiding principles are a set of values that establish the framework for decision-making throughout the work
effort. They can serve as a rubric to measure the solutions by and represent the culture of the NFIP
Compliance Audit. As the Compliance Committee worked through solutions to redesign the CAC/CAV
process, they adhered to the principles shown in Figure 3 in reviewing their recommended approaches.
158
159
FIGURE 3: NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT REDESIGN PRINCIPLES
160
1.7 Challenges of the CAC/CAV Process
161
162
163
Key challenges associated with the previous compliance process served as a major impetus for the overall
process redesign. Compliance Committee members were tasked with assessing four key challenges
associated with CACs and CAVs as first identified by branch chiefs at Floodplain Management and Insurance:
164
•
CAVs are implemented inconsistently and lack standardization.
165
•
There should be an effective separation between audit and assistance.
166
•
CAVs take a long time to close.
167
•
It is difficult to demonstrate the value of a CAV.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
4
168
169
For each of these key challenges, the Compliance Committee identified root causes that reflect underlying
pain points and issues associated with the challenge areas. Key root causes are as follows:
Element
Process
People
Institutional
Support
Root Causes for Challenges of the Former CAC/CAV Delivery Model
Inconsistent Application and Implementation – HQ, Regions, and states can have different
guidance, approaches, and resources to conduct CAC/CAVs.
Assistance and Auditing Occurs Concurrently – There is limited distinction between
“audit” and “technical assistance,” which can lead to lack of clarity and accountability
for the auditing function of FPM.
Lack of Clarity Around Timelines – Time required to complete compliance actions can
vary greatly, and there is no established timeline to manage expectations or force
accountability.
CAV Closure Is Often a Lengthy Process – There are different rationales and drivers for
length of time, which can reduce speed in pursuing enforcement actions.
CAVs Are Resource Intensive – CAVs require a significant amount of Regional and state
staff time and resources.
Turnover of Auditing Staff Leads to Loss of Knowledge – Personnel changes at all levels
result in knowledge gaps and a loss of momentum.
Varying Staff Capacity and Capability – FEMA and state staff have different experience
levels and require different approaches for training and capacity building (e.g.,
mentoring, cross-training, etc.).
Limited Opportunities for Cross-Sharing of Information about CAC/CAVs – Floodplain
specialists and staff who conduct audits do not have a forum to convene, share
information about best practices and lessons learned, or coordinate results of a CAV.
Incentives, Awards, and Recognition Are Not Used to Promote Success –There is limited
recognition of successes or incentives for good work.
Limited State/Community Ownership – State and local officials do not feel they “own” the
process and therefore may not recognize the benefits of understanding the current
status or health of their floodplain management program.
Lack of Political Will – There is a persistent perception that “FEMA won’t do anything”
to address noncompliance and mixed levels of support from state or local officials to
enforce requirements given political sensitivities or difficulties.
170
1.8 Equity Considerations
171
172
173
174
Ensuring that equitable outcomes are achieved through a redesigned NFIP Compliance Audit is a
fundamental condition of success. In FY23, the Compliance Committee held a three-day sprint to diagnose
potential inequities that exist in the CAC/CAV process. We are in the early stages of addressing equity in our
programs. Figure 4 shows some of the ways we are considering equity in our redesign.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
5
Community
Selection
Technical
Assistance
Low population,
Low development
communities
Simplification and
Transparency
175
176
Community selection for audits will include understanding of social
vulnerability.
Additional resources, time, and/or holistic approach to technical
assistance for socially vulnerable communities.
Simplification of the overall process and more transparency and clearer
expectations for meeting floodplain management requirements (e.g.,
audit questions, etc.).
Additional outreach and focused engagement to low-population,
low-development communities who may not be typically audited
given low risk.
FIGURE 4: W AYS TO CONSIDER EQUITY IN REDESIGN
177
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
6
178
2. The NFIP Compliance Audit Program
179
180
181
182
183
184
The NFIP Compliance Audit aims to review all 22,500+ NFIP communities through a new Progressive Audit
Framework. The target metric for reviews is 60 percent of the portfolio every five years. The Progressive
Audit features varying tiers of engagement to ensure the right level of scrutiny is given to a community. This
provides the ability to complete the audit or “off-ramp” communities earlier in the audit process. Only
communities with the most severe compliance issues, through a series of criteria (and “off-ramps”) would
experience a full, in-person or virtual audit.
185
186
187
188
The NFIP Compliance Audit takes a wholistic approach to NFIP compliance by integrating key processes that
were previously siloed and inconsistently implemented. This multiphase approach for the NFIP Compliance
Audit ensures key compliance activities occur in a standardized and streamlined process. The phases of the
NFIP Compliance Audit Program are summarized in Figure 5.
Phase 1: Audit
Progressive Audit featuring varying depths of review to assess the compliance health of
all 22,500+ NFIP communities more efficiently and effectively.
Phase 2: Audit Follow-Up & Technical Assistance
Follow-up and technical assistance occur in a distinct phase from the audit to more
effectively support communities in remedying floodplain management program
deficiencies and violations.
Phase 3: Enforcement
189
190
Standardized processes will support enforcement actions resulting from compliance
audits to ensure effective coordination between Regions and states.
FIGURE 5: T HREE (3) STANDARD PHASES OF THE NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT
191
2.1 NFIP Compliance Audit Workflow
192
193
194
195
196
197
The NFIP Compliance Audit process is organized around three major phases: (1) Audit; (2) Audit Follow-Up &
Technical Assistance; and (3) Enforcement. The Audit Phase features four stages with varying tiers of
scrutiny to assess the community’s compliance with NFIP minimum floodplain management standards. This
includes Preparation, Community Contact, Enhanced Community Contact, and Full Evaluation. The
community’s journey through the audit process will vary depending on the nature of the level of floodplain
management program deficiencies and violations. This process is summarized in Figure 6.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
7
198
199
FIGURE 6: NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROCESS W ORKFLOW
200
2.2 What’s In and What’s Out
201
202
The new audit process has new terminology and concepts. The following table provides a high-level
crosswalk of key changes between the current and future NFIP compliance processes.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
8
Previous Process
Redesigned Process
CAC/CAV Process
NFIP Compliance Audit – The redesigned NFIP Compliance Audit process
includes three new phases for auditing, assisting, and enforcing NFIP
regulations nationwide.
CAC or CAV
Audit / Progressive Audit – Audits of communities become progressively more
in-depth as risk and development become more of an issue. However, with
increased compliance and transparency of requirements, there is greater
ability to complete audits or “off ramp” communities earlier in the
compliance audit process.
Open or Closed CAVs
Phase Duration - Tracking the length of time in the Audit Phase, Follow-up &
Assistance phase, and Enforcement phase will provide more granular
understanding of where a community lies within the compliance audit
process.
CAV Closed
Audit Complete – Audit is complete at Diagnostic Assessment or Full
Evaluation stages. There is more certainty when the audit of the
community’s program has ended and when Phase 2 Audit Follow-up &
Assistance begin.
Audit and Technical
Assistance Occurring
Concurrently
Distinct Audit and Audit Follow-up & Assistance Phases – Technical Assistance is
an essential component to the compliance process; however, this begins
after the audit is complete in a new, separate phase of the NFIP
Compliance Audit.
Long Narrative Boxes
Detailing Compliance in the
Community Information
System (CIS)
Audit Score and Metrics – Auditors will use tools that produce a numeric
score of the community’s compliance in the Diagnostic Assessment or Full
Evaluation phase. There are check boxes and pull downs for
determinations of compliance findings and there will be flexibility for
narrative descriptions of the findings.
Lack of Standardization in
Audit and Data Collection
Diagnostic Assessment and Full Evaluation tools – Tools will provide structure
and a rubric for evaluating the community with pull-downs of compliance
determinations to choose from.
“FEMA Won’t Do Anything”
Clearer, Transparent Enforcement Process – Additional tools, a defined process,
and documentation requirements will allow FEMA and states to better
coordinate on compliance cases following the completion of the audit.
203
2.3 Value of the New NFIP Compliance Audit
204
205
206
207
Like an annual check-up, regular compliance audits improve the health of floodplain management
programs nationwide by identifying and eliminating behaviors that put lives and property at risk. Without
regular and effective monitoring, our ability to ensure local compliance is diminished. The redesigned audit
process will enable FEMA to understand the compliance health of all 22,500+ NFIP participating
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
9
208
209
communities and measure improvement along the way – reinforcing FEMA’s audit responsibility as a critical
part of the broader NFIP. Figure 7 lists key benefits of the new process.
Measure Compliance Health
The Progressive Audit and its accompanying tools capture compliance health
at a point in time, creating ability to measure improvement over time.
Phased Duration Tracking
Tracking the duration of each phase helps us clearly define where a
community is within the three-phase NFIP Compliance Audit process.
Reduced Complexity
Decoupling the auditing and technical assistance elements of the compliance
audit process increases transparency, accountability, and consistency.
Articulate Value of Floodplain Management
Standard scoring tools allow for the ability to capture nationwide data and
trends to tell the story of floodplain management’s value more easily.
Nationwide Training and Standards
Standardized scoring tools—which aim to integrate seamlessly into CIS—
served up by comprehensive trainings will speed the training of new Auditors.
Multiple Paths to Compliance
Scoring tools are flexible to account for the variety of approaches
communities may take to achieve NFIP compliance.
Increased Support to Communities
Spend more time focusing on technical assistance to those who need it.
Streamlined Enforcement Procedures
New standardized processes ensure Auditors have the support and resources
to enforce regulations when necessary and initiated by the Region.
210
FIGURE 7 KEY BENEFITS OF THE NEW PROCESS
211
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
10
212
3. Phase 1 Audit
213
214
215
216
217
218
Phase 1 of the NFIP Compliance Audit features the Progressive Audit, with varying depths of review to
capture the compliance health of every community participating in the NFIP. Figure 8 provides a snapshot of
the key activities and pathways available to complete the audit. Before the community can begin to receive
technical assistance through the compliance audit program, Auditors must first complete the audit and
upload the Diagnostic Assessment and/or Full Evaluation report generated by the accompanying tools in the
Community Information System (CIS).
219
220
FIGURE 8: PROCESS W ORKFLOW OF PHASE 1 AUDIT
221
3.1 Primary Auditing Themes
222
223
224
225
226
As part of the NFIP Compliance Audit process, communities will always be assessed against four auditing
themes, as shown in Figure 9. This ensures a consistent approach for assessing NFIP compliance to help
communities understand what they are being held accountable to. Every question housed within the suite of
standard tools (i.e., Self Assessment, Diagnostic Assessment Tool, Full Evaluation Tool) organize under one
of these four themes.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
11
1
Floodplain Administrator
Capability, Capacity, and
Institutional Support
Does the official responsible
for regulating/enforcing the
NFIP have the required
expertise, knowledge,
technical capabilities, and
institutional support?
2
3
4
227
Standardized
Processes
Does the community have
standard operating
procedures and an
effective record-keeping
process?
228
Map Availability and
Accuracy
Is the community
regulating/enforcing
against its most accurate
risk assessment?
Floodplain Management
Regulations
Is the community’s
ordinance up to date and
how is it being enforced?
FIGURE 9: F OUR AUDITING THEMES
229
3.2 Phase 1 Audit Overview
230
231
The Progressive Audit under Phase 1 will consist of defined activities and outcomes under three stages, as
shown below.
STAGE:
ACTIVITIES:
OUTCOME:
Community and Auditor come
Preparation Stage: The Preparation stage is the first
prepared to engage in a
stage in Phase 1 Audit of the NFIP Compliance Audit
dialogue around the
process. Key activities include Community Selection,
community’s floodplain
administering the Self Assessment, and conducting the
management program health.
Ordinance Review.
PREPARATION
Community Selection: FEMA Regions and states will be Data-informed decision-making
to select communities most in
required to use the Community Engagement
need of compliance audits.
Prioritization Tool (CEPT) to prioritize communities that
Ability to advance equity goals
are most in need of compliance audits. CEPT is an
for
community selection.
online application that analyzes, profiles, and maps the
nation’s 22,500+ land use jurisdictions.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
12
STAGE:
ACTIVITIES:
OUTCOME:
Community afforded opportunity
Community Self Assessment: After a community is
to participate in the auditing
selected for audit, the Auditor will disseminate the Self
process and share their
Assessment to the local official charged with
understanding of their floodplain
administering the community’s floodplain management
management program’s health.
program.
PREPARATION
Ordinance Review: Auditors will conduct ordinance
reviews using a standard checklist before the
community official is contacted.
Gain understanding of the
community’s compliance with
floodplain management
regulations.
Data Source Review: Auditors should research a wide
range of other available data sources (e.g., FEMA’s
National Risk Index, National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding
Impacts, etc.) to inform and prioritize areas for review.
Auditor comes prepared to
engage the local official armed
with information on the
community’s current and future
flood hazards and risks.
Ability to complete the audit
Diagnostic Assessment Stage: The set of activities
after conducting a telephone
making up the Community Contact and Enhanced
call and/or reviewing
Community Contact. The Diagnostic Assessment and
documentation without the need
its accompanying tool, the Diagnostic Assessment Tool,
for a full evaluation.
include two stages for review (Community Contact and
Enhanced Community Contact) and allows for the
ability to complete the audit without the need for a
virtual or traditional visit/flood tour (Full Evaluation).
DIAGNOSTIC
ASSESSMENT
Community Contact: The Community Contact is a
telephone or other virtual conversation with the
community. Auditors will use the Diagnostic
Assessment Tool to assess the community’s floodplain
management program and generate a Diagnostic
Assessment Score.
Ability to complete the
community’s audit after a
Community Contact. If potential
issues or concerns are
identified, ability to move
community further into the
Progressive Audit.
Enhanced Community Contact: The Enhanced
Community Contact is a review of documentation
sampled from the community after the Community
Contact. Based on the number of permits and
variances granted in the community, the Diagnostic
Assessment Tool provides a recommended number of
documents that should be reviewed for any potential
issues.
Ability to complete the
community’s audit after
reviewing documentation.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
13
STAGE:
ACTIVITIES:
OUTCOME:
Ability to comprehensively
Full Evaluation: The Full Evaluation Stage is the final
assess the compliance of a
stage in the Progressive Audit. If Auditors choose to
community’s floodplain
progress the community to the Full Evaluation Stage,
management program and
Auditors will be provided with the opportunity to
report the community’s
conduct either one in-person, Traditional Visit or one
compliance with NFIP
Virtual Visit with community officials. Once the
regulations.
community has been visited either virtually or through
the traditional in-person approach, the Phase 1 Audit is
complete.
FULL
EVALUATION
Virtual Visit: If the Diagnostic Assessment reveals
potential risks or issues that require additional review,
the Auditor may have the option to conduct the Full
Evaluation virtually. This will involve a comprehensive
assessment of the community’s floodplain
management program through a virtual meeting and
floodway tour.
Ability to meet with community
officials and conduct a flood
tour virtually during the Full
Evaluation.
Traditional Visit: If the Diagnostic Assessment reveals
potential risks or issues that require additional review,
the Auditor will have the option to conduct the Full
Evaluation through a traditional, in-person visit.
Ability to meet with community
officials and conduct a flood
tour in-person during the Full
Evaluation.
232
3.3 NFIP Compliance Audit Toolkit
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
To power the Progressive Audit, a suite of standard tools ensures a consistent rubric for evaluating the
community. The NFIP Compliance Audit Toolkit is a Microsoft Excel-based audit resource with a dynamic set
of tabs containing auditing questions, scoring formulas, and data visualizations. Each tool has been
developed for a specific stage in the NFIP Compliance Audit process. They were designed with the goal of
synchronization with CIS to minimize duplication of effort and to maximize support to NFIP communities.
Auditors assessing a community’s floodplain management program will be required to use the tools and
upload the accompanying findings into CIS at the completion of the audit.
240
NOTE: The tools comprising the set of tabs within the Excel-based NFIP
Compliance Audit Toolkit serve as the foundation for the data and
functionality needs of the Compliance Audit Modules in the Community
Information System. The Compliance Committee envisions this toolkit
living within a modernized CIS to more efficiently document, extract, and
share data generated by the tools. Requirements for this system were
provided to the Community Information System Modernization (CIS MOD)
team in August FY22.
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
The NFIP Compliance Audit Toolkit includes the following tools:
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
14
249
•
Administrative Information
250
•
Community Self Assessment
251
•
Ordnance Checklist
252
•
Diagnostic Assessment Tool and Diagnostic Assessment Report
253
•
Full Evaluation Tool and Full Evaluation Report
254
255
This suite of tools that support the NFIP Compliance Audit process will arm Auditors with a consistent rubric
for auditing communities for NFIP compliance. Figure 10 provides a sample image of the toolkit.
256
257
258
FIGURE 10: SAMPLE IMAGE OF COMPLIANCE AUDIT T OOLKIT
259
3.4 Preparation Stage
260
3.4.1 Overview
261
262
263
264
The first stage in the Audit Phase is Preparation. The primary objective of the Preparation stage is for the
Region/state to select which communities will receive a compliance audit and to prepare to engage the
community. Preparation stage activities, as shown in Figure 11, serve as the basis for discussion during the
Community Contact and subsequent deeper stages of review.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
15
265
266
FIGURE 11: PREPARATION STAGE IN PHASE 1 AUDIT
267
268
TOOLS: Preparation Stage
269
270
Community Self Assessment – The Community Self Assessment is a questionnaire that every
community selected for audit will receive and complete before further engagement.
271
272
273
Ordinance Review Checklist – The Ordinance Review checklist captures whether the community’s
latest adopted floodplain management ordinance meets all of the NFIP minimum requirements
and must be conducted before the community is contacted.
274
275
Activities
276
Community selected for audit based on risk and need
277
Auditor disseminates the Community Self Assessment to local floodplain administrator (FPA)
278
Auditor reviews data from a variety of sources to prepare for the Community Contact
279
Auditor reviews the Community’s Self Assessment responses and validates information
280
Auditor conducts the Ordinance Review
281
282
Intended Outcomes
283
Auditor comes prepared to engage community
284
Community has a role in the audit process and validates FEMA data
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
16
285
3.4.2 Community Selection
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
Each fiscal year, FEMA Regions and state NFIP Coordinating Offices through the Community Assistance
Program State Support Services Element identify communities that will receive compliance audits. The
development of standard community selection criteria for audit candidates is in its early stages. Ultimately,
the Compliance Committee proposes the implementation of flexible, standard criteria that each FEMA
Region will use to select its portfolio of compliance audits through use of the Community Engagement
Prioritization Tool (CEPT). Version 3 of the redesigned CEPT looks at every community participating in the
NFIP and asks a series of questions to place that community into an audit candidate pool. The CEPT Audit
module produces four lists:
294
295
•
A list of communities that may need Community Rating System audits or that have experienced a
recent disaster
296
297
•
A list of communities that have not been audited in the last five years – meaning, in the old process,
that a CAV or CAC has not been opened or closed with findings in the last five years.
298
299
•
A list of communities that have been audited in the last five years – meaning, in the old process, that
a CAV or CAC has been closed with findings in the last five years.
300
•
A list of communities that currently have open audits.
301
302
303
The selection criteria the Compliance Committee is proposing would ensure that Regions and states select a
diverse group of NFIP communities based on risk, development, and time since last audit to ensure there is
a consistent, transparent, and equitable approach to engaging NFIP communities for compliance audits.
304
3.4.3 Self Assessment
305
306
307
308
309
The Community Self Assessment provides an opportunity for floodplain administrators (FPAs) to share their
understanding of the community’s floodplain management program. It aims to serve as a basis for
discussion and community buy-in. The Self Assessment will also illuminate potential issues related to the
community’s floodplain management practices and will provide a baseline for engaging the community
during the Diagnostic Assessment.
310
311
312
313
314
The Self Assessment provides an opportunity for the community to participate in the audit process. As some
of the local official’s responses may conflict with FEMA’s data, the results of the assessment do not factor
into any scores. As such, the Auditor cannot change any of the community’s responses to the Self
Assessment once submitted. It only aims to serve as an initial data gathering exercise to inform future
discussion with the community. Figure 12 shows an example page of the Self Assessment.
315
IMPORTANT:
316
317
Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements – The Community Self Assessment cannot be
administered to communities until FPM HQ has completed the Paperwork Reduction Act process.
318
319
320
321
322
323
CIS Modernization – The Compliance Committee, as part of its package of requirements to the CIS
MOD team, requested the ability to deliver the Self Assessment to the community using a webbased form. In these proposed requirements, the community will complete the Self Assessment
form online and the responses would automatically populate in a modernized Audit module for the
Auditor to review. In lieu of CIS MOD development, Auditors will manually disseminate the Self
Assessment and transcribe and the community’s responses.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
17
324
325
FIGURE 12: COMMUNITY SELF ASSESSMENT, EXAMPLE PAGE
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
18
326
Auditor Instructions
327
328
After communities are selected for audit, Auditors must distribute the Self Assessment to the local
official.
329
330
331
The Self Assessment currently exists as a fillable Microsoft Word form. Auditors should send this
Microsoft Word version of the Self Assessment via email to the local official charged with
administering the community’s floodplain management program.
332
333
334
335
336
337
IMPORTANT: Do NOT send the Microsoft Excel version of the Self Assessment, which contains the
Diagnostic and Full Evaluation tools, to the community. There is a separate version of the Self
Assessment located in the Microsoft Auditor Toolkit. The Excel version of the Self Assessment is
designed for the Auditor to transcribe the answers provided by the community from the Word
version of the form. This allows for the community’s responses to be uploaded into a database
when the future CIS Modernization is complete (if possible).
338
339
Upon receipt of the form, Auditors should review the information provided and transcribe the
community’s responses into the Microsoft Excel-based version of the tool for data collection.
340
341
342
After reviewing the information, the Auditor would complete the “Auditor Validation” section of the
form, which is not included on the community’s form. This section provides an opportunity to
review any inaccuracies or areas to discuss during the Community Contact.
343
344
345
Lastly, Auditors will upload the completed Community Self Assessment and validation questions
into CIS. In lieu of CIS Modernization, Auditors should upload the file into the CAC Follow-Up screen
once the Self Assessment has been approved for dissemination.
346
3.4.4 Ordinance Review
347
348
349
Every community that receives an audit as part of the NFIP Compliance Audit will receive an Ordinance
Review at the start of the audit process. The ordinance review serves as a basis of discussion with the
community and initiates the compliance review.
350
Ordinance Review Checklist
351
352
353
354
The Ordinance Review Checklist is housed within the “Ordinance Checklist” tab in the NFIP
Compliance Audit toolkit. The Compliance Redesign team is currently working to clarify the
minimum requirements that can be enforced in an ordinance to more effectively standardize how
the ordinance is audited for compliance nationwide.
355
A sample of the Ordinance Checklist housed within the Auditor toolkit is shown in Figure 13.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
19
356
357
FIGURE 13: SAMPLE OF THE O RDINANCE CHECKLIST
358
3.5 Diagnostic Assessment Stage
359
3.5.1 Overview
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
The second stage in the Audit Phase is the Diagnostic Assessment. The Diagnostic Assessment allows FEMA
to determine the compliance status of all communities audited and provides an opportunity to complete the
audit after a Community Contact or Enhanced Community Contact. The Diagnostic Assessment Tool (DAT)
provides a standard rubric to assess NFIP compliance during the Diagnostic Assessment stage. The tool
contains a series of gate criteria, including “red flags,” to help Auditors determine whether the community’s
audit can be completed at the Diagnostic Assessment stage or whether a Full Evaluation is needed. The
activities in the Diagnostic Assessment stage include the Community Contact and Enhanced Community
Contact. This stage is highlighted in Figure 14. Figure 15 shows tabs located in the NFIP Compliance Audit
Toolkit that serve as the foundation of the Diagnostic Assessment.
369
370
FIGURE 14: DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT STAGE IN PHASE 1 AUDIT
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
20
371
372
FIGURE 15: T ABS IN THE NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT T OOLKIT COMPRISING THE DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT
373
Auditor Instructions
374
375
These tools are meant to standardize the compliance review process. However, it is understood
that professional, informed judgments will have to be made during these reviews.
376
The DAT is a triage tool to help you determine whether a community needs a full CAV.
377
378
Ask as many questions as needed to gain an understanding of the program to score it accordingly,
but know that only the questions in the tool will be scored.
379
380
Use the “auditor data entry” and “findings and notes” fields as needed to elucidate where
necessary.
381
382
“Red Flags” are questions that could trigger the need for further review (enhanced CAC, or full
elevation), and will appear as a numeric score in the “area of concern” column as Red.
383
Evaluations can be done in-person or virtually.
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
TOOL: Diagnostic Assessment Stage
Diagnostic Assessment Tool – The DAT is a diagnostic scoring tool developed for the Community
Contact and Enhanced Community Contact. The tool is housed within the NFIP Compliance Audit
Toolkit. If areas of concern are identified during the initial contact, the tool facilitates a sampling of
documentation to review based on the size of the community. If further issues are identified, the
community will be moved to a Full Evaluation. Add note about red flags in the DAT.
391
392
Activities
393
394
Auditor uses information from Ordinance Review, Self Assessment, and other data sources to
assess community compliance using the DAT (Community Contact).
395
396
If answers require further explanation, Auditor reviews a sample of documentation (Enhanced
Community Contact).
397
398
If answers to either the Community Contact or Enhanced Community Contact in the Diagnostic
Assessment are sufficient, the community’s audit is complete.
399
Auditor uploads the Diagnostic Assessment Report and accompanying score into CIS.
400
401
If answers signal significant areas of concern, Auditor will determine if a Full Evaluation is needed
to comprehensively assess NFIP Compliance.
402
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
21
403
Intended Outcomes
404
405
Ability to complete Audit for smaller, less risky, and low-development communities with less time
and resources.
406
3.5.2 Community Contact
407
408
409
410
411
412
Upon reviewing the Self Assessment and conducting preliminary research, such as reviewing the
community’s profile, level of development, and previous reports, the Auditor will engage the community
through a telephone contact, or “Community Contact.” During the Community Contact, Auditors will ask the
series of questions housed within the DAT and capture the output scoring to determine the health of the
community’s floodplain management program. Based on the DAT scoring, the following thresholds have
been established to inform the next steps:
413
414
•
Below 60 percent on diagnostic (with or without red flags), go to vCAV or CAV, then close then
Phase 2.
415
416
•
Between 60 and 80 percent on diagnostic (with or without red flags), go to enhanced CAC or vCAV or
CAV, then close and go to Phase 2.
417
418
•
Above 80 percent on diagnostic and no “red flags,” close audit and go to phase 2. If red flags, then
auditor can choose to go to enhanced CAC or vCAV or CAV, then close and go to Phase 2.
419
420
Please note that these thresholds are subject to change as more data becomes available to inform better
decision making.
421
Community Contact and the Diagnostic Assessment Tool
422
423
424
425
426
Auditors must use the DAT to frame and record the outputs from the discussion with the community using a
series of standard questions. The DAT is housed within the Auditor Toolkit as shown in Figure 16. After
receiving answers to all of the questions contained in the DAT, the tool will calculate a Diagnostic
Assessment Score. Every community audited as part of the NFIP Compliance Audit will receive a diagnostic
assessment score.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
22
427
428
FIGURE 16: DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT T OOL
429
The DAT was designed to provide the following benefits:
430
431
Quantifiable Assessment – Enables Auditors to “put numbers to the narrative” and quantifiably
assess a community’s floodplain management program procedures.
432
433
Multiple Paths to Compliance – Reflects a variety of approaches to achieving compliance by NFIP
participating communities across the nation.
434
435
Support for Data Analytics -- Allows for analysis of trends or common program gaps across
communities, states and Regions.
436
437
Standardized Question Checklist -- Checklist functionality guides the Community Contact and flags
areas for further discussion or review of documentation (e.g., permits).
438
439
Support for Training and Consistency – Standard diagnostics ensure NFIP communities nationwide
are evaluated across a standard set of floodplain management criteria.
440
Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Based Questions in the Diagnostic Assessment Tool
441
442
The non-required elements of a community’s floodplain management program are not scored in the DAT, but
they are tracked.
443
Diagnostic Assessment Scoring Criteria
444
Figure 17 shows the methodology used to calculate the community’s diagnostic assessment score.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
23
445
446
FIGURE 17:DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT SCORING METHODOLOGY
447
Community Contact Questions in the Diagnostic Assessment Tool
448
449
The DAT contains the following questions aligned to the four auditing themes. Every NFIP community must
be assessed against these questions as part of the NFIP Compliance Audit Process:
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
24
Question
Floodplain Administrator Capability, Capacity, and Institutional Support – Does the official responsible for
regulating/enforcing the NFIP have the required expertise, knowledge, technical capabilities, and institutional support?
1.1
Since the last audit (CAV or CAC), has there been any development in the SFHA or is any currently
planned?
1.2
How does the community accomplish permit development? (Select the response that best fits the
community’s situation or current practices).
1.2a
If the community permitting process is through multiple departments or offices, list the
departments/offices in the space shaded gold to the right.
1.2b
If the community contracts out the permitting process, describe your contractor selection criteria.
Floodplain Administrator Capability, Capacity, and Institutional Support
1.3
1.3a
How does the community coordinate permit development? If coordination is through a single department
select “Full Coordination.”
If the coordination is across departments, does the FPA receive notice of floodplain permit changes by
other departments and reviews for compliance?
1.4
Is the floodplain management program’s position in the organization appropriate to ensure effectiveness in
carrying out its duties?
1.5
With regard to enforcement, are stop work orders issued if any significant problems are identified?
1.6
With regard to enforcement, does the community have and use code enforcement authority?
1.7
With regard to enforcement, does the FPA review, or is the FPA otherwise involved in, appeals?
1.8
With regard to enforcement, does the FPA review variance request reviews or approvals?
1.9
Have there been any variances from local floodplain management ordinances in the SFHA [Special Flood
Hazard Area] for new and substantial improvement to structures in the last three (3) years?
1.9a
If yes to Q 1.8, were the variance issued in compliance with 44 CFR 60.6? (e.g., Historic Structures,
Agricultural Structures, Accessory Structures, other). Please list details.
1.9b
If yes to Q 1.8, if there were variances, indicate the type and approximate number of variances from
local floodplain management criteria in the SFHA.
1.10
How does the community maintain records of floodplain development (Select the response that best fits
the community’s situation or current practices).
1.11
How does the community describe the support (direct and indirect) from the CEO [chief executive officer]
and officials to enforce its ordinances?
1.12
Where applicable, does the community use historic FIRM [Flood Insurance Rate Map] and FIS [Flood
Insurance Study] for permitting to verify the structure was built in compliance at the time of new
construction?
1.13
Does the community maintain copies of Letters of Map Changes (LOMC)? (Select the response that best
fits the community’s situation or current practices).
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
25
Question
Map Availability and Accuracy
Map Availability and Accuracy – Is the community regulating/enforcing against its most accurate risk assessment?
2.1
During permitting, how are the flood zone and base flood elevation (BFE), or regulatory flood height
determined by the FPA or designee? (Select the response that best fits the community’s situation or
current practices).
2.2
In reference to how the BFE and regulatory flood height are checked during plan review: is the BFE
determined by the FPA office and provided to the applicant at permit initiation?
2.3
In reference to how the BFE and regulatory flood height are checked during plan review: is the BFE
generated by the applicant/surveyor and verified before the permit is issued?
2.4
Is there base flood elevation (BFE) in this community (e.g., AE numbered zones, only zone A, etc.)?
2.4a
2.5
If no to Q 2.4, describe how the community assures elevations are appropriate relative to adjacent
ground level in the space shaded gold to the right.
Are the most recent FIRMs and/or FIS cited in the ordinance (for communities without auto-adopt)? (Select
the response that best fits the community’s situation or current practices).
(in guidance: if 60.3a community where no FEMA maps or data exist, choose N/A)
2.5a
If the most recent FIRMs are cited, please indicate the date in the space shaded gold to the right.
2.5b
If the most recent FISs are cited, please indicate the date in the space shaded gold to the right.
2.6
Does the FPA use the MSC [FEMA Map Service Center] and/or NFHL [National Flood Hazard Layer] when
working with flood hazard map products, in addition to digital/paper FIRMs and FIS (where present)?
2.7
Is the community using other maps or studies for regulating the floodplain?
2.8
Has the community completed necessary actions (44 CFR 64.4) if there has been a recent change to the
community’s territorial or extraterritorial boundaries that affected SFHA?
2.9
Does the community require and initiate Letters of Map Change (LOMC) when appropriate?
2.9a
If Yes or Sometimes was selected in 2.9, indicate those instances when they are used in the space
shaded gold to the right (e.g., If natural LAG [lowest adjacent grade]>BFE, advise LOMA [Letter of Map
Amendment]; If floodway impact, CLOMR [Conditional Letter of Map Revision] and LOMR [Letter of Map
Revision]; If fill used, LOMR-F [Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill]; If proposal changes BFE/SFHA,
require CLOMR and LOMR)
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
26
Question
Floodplain Management Regulations
Floodplain Management Regulations – Is the community’s ordinance up to date and how is it being enforced?
3.1
During inspections, is the community actively ensuring as-built elevations are collected and reviewed?
3.2
Are other state and federal permits obtained and checked by the FPA office? (e.g., EPA [U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency], USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] 404 Permit, state
environmental permits)
3.3
During permit review, are lowest floor and utilities checked against BFE (or grade) to ensure proper
elevation is proposed?
3.4
An ordinance review was completed and can best be summarized as: (Select the response that best fits
the community’s situation or current practices).
3.4a
3.5
3.5a
Briefly summarize ordinance review findings in the space to the right, under your response, if needed.
For ordinances, does the state require higher standards than FEMA?
If Yes to 3.5, has the community adopted these higher standards?
3.6
Are other regulations in the community coordinated with the floodplain ordinance(s)?
3.7
Are certain classes of development exempt from NFIP regulations (at state/county/local level)?
3.7a
3.8
If yes to 3.7, describe these exemptions in the space shaded gold to the right.
Indicate the approximate number of permits granted for development in the SFHA in the last three (3)
years in the space to the right. If there were 0, indicate as such.
Standardized Processes – Does the community have standard operating procedures and an effective record-keeping
process?
4.1
Standardized Processes
4.1a
Which option best describes the community’s permitting process?
Describe the permitting process narrative and coordination (e.g., through other departments/offices) and
identify any gaps (e.g., types of developments that are not reviewed) in the process in the space to the
right.
4.2
With regard to the community permitting process, and if the zones apply to the community, are floodway
proposals reviewed and documented correctly?
4.3
With regard to the community permitting process, and if the zones apply to the community, are coastal
high hazard area V zone foundation and design standards met?
4.3a
4.4
4.4a
4.5
If yes to question 4.3, please indicate specifics (e.g., prohibit fill, open foundation or breakaway wall,
lowest horizontal structural member (LHSM) above BFE) in the space shaded gold to the right.
Which option best describes the community’s Substantial Improvement, Substantial Damage (SI/SD)
administration?
Describe the community’s SI/SD administration if the options in 4.2 are not fully descriptive or if there
are gaps identified in the administration of the program (in the space to the right).
With regard to the market value source that the community uses or requires from applicant for SI/SD, what
source does the community use?
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
27
Question
4.6
How are the BFE and/or the regulatory flood height checked during plan review?
4.7
Does the community have engineering staff or similar capacity at the permit review process, including
floodway development reviews (H&H [hydrology and hydraulics] study and supporting no-rise
documentation) as applicable?
4.8
When are inspections of floodplain development performed by responsible community officials? (Select the
response that best fits the community’s situation or current practices).
4.9
Are as-built elevations for structures collected and reviewed (Evaluation Tool Q3.3)?
4.10
Are floodproofing certifications collected for non-residential structures?
4.11
Has the community had any water course alterations that change the BFE and/or location of SFHA
within the last five years, or since the last CAV?
4.12
Has the community had any capital improvement projects (e.g., roads and bridges) that may
require review within the last five years or since the last CAV?
4.13
Has the community had any large construction projects that may require review within the SFHA
over the last five years or since the last CAV?
4.14
Has the community had any projects that involve critical facilities within the SFHA that may
require review over the last five years or since the last CAV.
4.15
With regard to the community permitting process, and if the zones apply to the community, are
subdivisions and large developments in Zone A checked for the 50 lots per 5 acres threshold?
4.16
Has the community had any non-structural development—items not typically covered by a
building permit (e.g., fill/grading, storage of equipment/materials, paving)—within the last
five years or since the last CAV?
4.17
If the community has experienced a flood disaster event INSIDE the SFHA in the past five years
resulting in damaged structures, did they do substantial damage determinations?
4.18
If the community has experienced a non-flood disaster (e.g., fire, wind, earthquake) event
INSIDE the SFHA in the past five years resulting in damaged structures, did they do substantial
damage determinations?
4.19
If yes to either 4.17 or 4.18, describe the type of event, the impacted area and whether the
event received state or federal level disaster declaration in the space shaded gold to the right.
4.20
Has the community experienced any disaster event OUTSIDE the SFHA in the past five years
resulting in flood damaged structures?
4.21
If yes to 4.20, describe the type of event, the impacted area, summary of flood damage, and
possible indicators of map change (or flood study) needs in the space shaded gold to the right.
450
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
28
451
3.5.3 Enhanced Community Contact
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
If further explanation is needed after the Community Contact (e.g., critical elements of the floodplain
management program are missing and/or areas of concern are raised), then the Auditor will move the
community to the Enhanced Community Contact. The Enhanced Community Contact is a comprehensive
desktop review of sampled documentation provided by the community (e.g., elevation certificates, permits,
variances, etc.). Following the Enhanced Community Contact, the Auditor will determine whether the audit
can be completed. If documentation demonstrates there are deficiencies in the floodplain management
program that may lead to violations of NFIP criteria, the community will be moved to the Full Evaluation
Stage.
460
Enhanced Community Contact and the Diagnostic Assessment Tool
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
To ensure a consistent process for reviewing documentation nationwide, Auditors must use the Enhanced
Community Contact module in the DAT. The Enhanced Community Contact module recommends a number
of various documents to sample and review based on the nature of the community’s development and
permitting process. For example, DR.1 in the Enhanced Community Contact module auto-calculates a
number of permits to review based on the number of permits the community has granted. This ensures that
Auditors are reviewing a representative sample of documentation. Any documentation that is used to
determine whether the community’s audit is complete or should be moved to the Full Evaluation must be
uploaded into CIS. The Enhanced Community Contact module in the Diagnostic Assessment tool is shown in
Figure 18.
470
471
FIGURE 18: ENHANCED COMMUNITY CONTACT MODULE IN THE DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT T OOL
472
Enhanced Community Contact Questions in the Diagnostic Assessment Tool
473
474
The DAT prompts the Auditor to review the following documentation if there are any areas of concern
identified during the Community Contact:
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
29
Question
Document Review and Recommendations – If there are critical elements missing or areas of concern resulting from the
Diagnostic Assessment, what are the outcomes from reviewing documentation?
5.1
[A recommended number of permits to review will populate, based on the approximate number of
permits granted in the community in the last 3 years].
5.1a
Indicate number of permits reviewed during this assessment.
5.1b
Indicate the number of permits reviewed with problems.
Document Review and Recommendations
5.2
[A recommended number of variances to review will populate based on the approximate number of
variances granted in the community in the last 3 years].
5.2a
Indicate the number of variances reviewed during this assessment.
5.2b
Indicate the number of variances reviewed with problems.
5.3
Indicate the approximate percentage of recent development (e.g., relative building pressure) in the
SFHA in the last five (5) years.
5.4
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type: Elevation Certificates.
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type with issues: Elevation Certificates. (explain in
findings and notes if needed).
5.4a
5.5
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type: Standard Operating Procedures.
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type with issues: Standard Operating Procedures.
(explain in findings and notes if needed).
5.5a
5.6
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type: BLE [base-level engineering] Documents.
5.6a
5.7
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type with issues: BLE Documents.
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type: H&H Analysis.
5.7a
5.8
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type with issues: H&H Analysis.
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type: LOMAs/LOMRs.
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type with issues: LOMAs/LOMRs. (explain in
findings and notes if needed)
5.8a
5.9
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type: No-Rise Certifications.
5.9a
Indicate the number of documents reviewed of this type with issues: No-Rise Certifications. (explain in
findings and notes if needed).
475
3.6 Full Evaluation Stage
476
3.6.1 Overview
477
478
479
The third stage in the Audit Phase is the Full Evaluation (see Figure 19). The Full Evaluation is a
comprehensive assessment of a community’s floodplain management program, which includes a floodplain
tour and meeting with local officials (this is typical of the current “CAV” process). This stage allows Auditors
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
30
480
481
to commit greater time and resources with more complex, higher-development communities with greater
consistency.
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
FIGURE 19: F ULL EVALUATION STAGE IN PHASE 1 AUDIT
A Full Evaluation in the Phase 1 Audit can be conducted either virtually through a Virtual Visit or in-person
through a Traditional Visit. It is the Auditor’s decision which type of visit to conduct. However, regardless of
which approach is used, Auditors will be required to use the Full Evaluation Tool (FET) to capture the
community’s compliance with NFIP regulations during the assessment. The focus of the FET is to ascertain
(1) whether there are physical, on-the-ground violations of floodplain management regulations and (2) the
severity and extent of any floodplain management program deficiencies/violations. Regardless of the
outcomes or score of the Full Evaluation, the audit is completed following the Full Evaluation and score
generated.
492
493
494
495
496
TOOL: Full Evaluation Stage
Full Evaluation Tool – The FET is a comprehensive audit scoring tool used for the Traditional Visit
or Virtual Visit in the Full Evaluation Stage. The FET scores a community across four (4) audit
themes to produce a Full Evaluation Score. The audit is complete regardless of the outcome of the
Traditional Visit or Virtual Visit.
497
498
Activities
499
Findings and score from DAT indicate community requires a Full Evaluation.
500
Auditor has the option to use a Traditional Visit or Virtual Visit to conduct Full Evaluation.
501
Auditor uses Full Evaluation Tool to assess compliance.
502
Auditor uploads the Full Evaluation Report and Full Evaluation Score into CIS.
503
Community’s audit is complete after the Full Evaluation.
504
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
31
505
Intended Outcomes
506
507
Ability to complete the Full Evaluation with greater detail required for larger, more complex, higherdevelopment communities with greater consistency and transparency.
508
3.6.2 Key Elements of the Full Evaluation Tool
509
The FET contains three (3) interconnected tabs (i.e., worksheets), as shown in Figure 20:
510
511
512
1. Full Evaluation Tool: User data entry tab with pull-down menu response fields, data entry fields, and
text entry fields for 26 questions under four themes. Calculates a comprehensive audit score (0 to
100 points).
513
514
2. Full Evaluation Tool Report: Auto-generated and formatted content from the Evaluation Tool tab for
use in generating a Community Audit Report, which can be saved (e.g., as a PDF) or printed.
515
516
3. Full Evaluation Tool Graphics: Auto-generated graphics and tables for use in the Full Evaluation
Report, including a table summarizing the community’s score by theme and a summary figure.
517
518
FIGURE 20: T ABS IN THE NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT T OOLKIT COMPRISING THE F ULL EVALUATION T OOL
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
Potential responses to each question are assigned a point value that is summed by theme, and then the
theme scores are summed for an overall/total Full Evaluation score. For each question in the FET, the
Auditor will either select one response from the dropdown menu “Your Response (Auditor Data Entry)”
column, or where directed by the question, enter a number value in the data entry field. The cells that
require a response are shaded light green (see Figure 21). Each question has an assigned weighting based
on relative importance of that element to a community’s floodplain management program. These weightings
cannot be adjusted. The “Raw Score” (unweighted) and “Weighted Score” columns are shown to the right of
the “Your Response” column in the Excel version of the tool.
527
528
529
530
531
532
FIGURE 21: AUDITOR DATA ENTRY CELLS
The following columns in the Evaluation Tool provide space for Auditor text entry for each question, where
the Auditor can note details pertinent to the finding and community’s score on the question for eventual
inclusion in the Full Evaluation Report.
•
“Findings”– Describe the compliance issue.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
32
533
534
•
“Reference(s)” — Enter the pertinent 44 CFR reference for the finding, or a reference to a state’s
model ordinance language, or similar, as support for the regulatory reason for the Auditor’s finding.
535
536
•
“Recommendation(s)” — Enter what the needed fix(es) are for compliance, or recommended
solution(s).
537
•
“Estimated Close Out Date” — Enter the proposed date for achieving compliance on the finding.
538
Traditional Visit or Virtual Visit Questions in the Full Evaluation Tool
539
540
541
542
The FET captures and scores the Full Evaluation stage of the community’s audit. The FET is housed within
the Microsoft Excel-based NFIP Compliance Audit Toolkit and contains a mix of multiple choice, binary
(Yes/No) and multi-part questions designed to assess an NFIP community’s floodplain management
program performance in four “themes”:
543
1. Floodplain Administrator Capability, Capacity, and Institutional Support
544
2. Map Availability and Accuracy
545
3. Floodplain Management Regulations
546
4. Standardized Processes
547
548
549
550
The FET helps to facilitate and promote understanding of and compliance with NFIP requirements. The tool
captures information on the community’s program and enables consistent, defensible, objective, and
transparent assessment of NFIP communities nationwide. The following questions are asked during the Full
Evaluation:
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
33
Question
Floodplain Administrator Capability, Capacity, and Institutional Support
Floodplain Administrator Capability, Capacity, and Institutional Support – Does the official responsible for
regulating/enforcing the NFIP have the required expertise, knowledge, technical capabilities, and institutional support?
1.1
How many years of floodplain management experience does the Floodplain Administrator have ?
1.2
Is the Floodplain Administrator a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM)?
1.3
What is the Floodplain Administrator’s familiarity with FEMA maps and study data? Specifically, what
products are being used when reviewing permits? For each type/row in question 1.3.1 – 1.3.5 please
select one response.
1.3.1
Are effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (digital or paper) used?
1.3.2
Is the effective Flood Insurance Study (digital or paper) used?
1.3.3
Are historic FIS or FIRMs used?
1.3.4
Are Letters of Map Change (digital or paper) used?
1.3.5
Are other best available data used?
1.4
What sources does the FPA use when working with FEMA map products and study data?
1.4.1
FEMA Map Service Center (MSC) and/or National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) tool
1.4.2
Local GIS software
1.5
Is the floodplain management program adequately staffed?
1.6
Is the floodplain management program adequately resourced (i.e., has sufficient budget)?
1.7
Is the floodplain management program’s position in the organization appropriate to ensure effectiveness
in carrying out its duties?
1.8
Does the FPA sufficiently interact/communicate with the mayor/council/CEO to ensure continued
community support for the floodplain management program?
Map Availability
and Accuracy
Map Availability and Accuracy – Is the community regulating/enforcing against its most accurate risk assessment?
2.1
In the past 3-5 years, has the community experienced significant flooding outside of the mapped SFHA
and provided that information to FEMA?
2.2
Has the community adopted the correct FIRMs and FIS for the entirety of its community boundary
(including any recent annexations)?
2.3
Is the community properly obtaining LOMCs to reflect current or changing flood risk?
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
34
Question
Floodplain Management Regulations – Is the community’s ordinance up to date and how is it being enforced?
Since the last audit (CAV or CAC), has there been any development in the SFHA or is any currently
planned?
3.2
If yes to question 3.1 above, how many permits has the FPA issued for development (both structural and
non-structural) in the SFHA since the last audit?
3.3
How does the community maintain as-built elevation data?
3.4
Is the community’s current floodplain management regulation compliant with NFIP minimum standards?
(Auditor to complete Floodplain Management Regulations Review Checklist)
3.5
How many compliance issues does the community currently have by category? (Multi-part question: enter
whole numbers for 3.5.1 – 3.5.14 below; a blank indicates zero/none for that category)
Floodplain Management Regulations
3.1
3.5.1
Floodways (unpermitted encroachments, permitted without no-rise analysis, or no-rise analysis
inaccurate/insufficient)
3.5.2
V Zone standards not met (foundation type, breakaway walls, V Zone certification)
3.5.3
Basements (new construction or SI)
3.5.4
Insufficient elevation of residential structures
3.5.5
Insufficient elevation/floodproofing of non-residential structures
3.5.6
Insufficient flood openings (all structure types)
3.5.7
As-built elevation information lacking (all structure types)
3.5.8
Lacking SI/SD assessments
3.5.9
Not following Letter of Map Change (LOMC) procedures (changing drainages or streams,
undocumented watercourse alterations)
3.5.10
In Zone A, developments (>50 lots or 5 acres) lacking development of BFEs
3.5.11
In AO-Zone, developments (>50 lots or 5 acres) lacking development of BFEs
3.5.12
Unpermitted fill/grading
3.5.13
Other (non-structural) development (e.g., dredging, storage of materials, insufficient drainage, noncompliant RVs)
3.5.14
Insufficient elevation or floodproofing of building service machinery in non-residential structures
3.6
How many variances (that are non-complaint with 44 CFR 60.6 ) has the community granted to its floodplain
management standards?
3.7
How many of the variances in question 3.6 above are not in accordance with the community’s own
floodplain management policies/standards?
3.8
When you encounter conflicting regulations do you always enforce the stricter regulation?
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
35
Question
Standardized Processes – Does the community have an effective record-keeping process?
Does the floodplain management program have a permitting process developed and in use for the
following options within the SFHA?
Floodplain Management Regulations
4.1
4.1.1
Residential structures (including subdivisions)
4.1.2
V Zone construction (certification, review)
4.1.3
Floodway encroachment (no-rise analysis review)
4.1.4
Commercial/non-residential structures
4.1.5
Substantial Improvement (SI) of structures
4.1.6
Substantial Damage (SD) of structures
4.1.7
Variances
4.1.8
CLOMR/LOMR (e.g., watercourse alterations, floodway development, culverts)
4.1.9
Recreational Vehicles
4.1.10
Accessory structures
4.1.11
Agricultural structures
4.1.12
Fill/grading
4.1.13
Other non-structural development as defined in 59.1
4.1.14
Other federal/state/local necessary permits
4.2
Does the community conduct inspections to ensure that every structure is built in accordance with
floodplain management regulations?
4.3
When does the community conduct inspections to ensure that structures are built as required for flood
regulations?
4.4
Are the floodplain management program’s SOPs and processes/procedures consistently used to perform
the functions of the floodplain management program?
4.5
Are permit records well organized and easily accessible?
4.6
Are variance records well organized and easily accessible?
4.7
Are the floodplain management program’s SOPs and processes/procedures reviewed and updated on a
regular basis (e.g., every 3 years)?
4.8
Does the community coordinate with other departments on floodplain management regulations?
551
Documentation
552
553
554
Auditors must collect and upload into CIS documentation used to validate floodplain management program
deficiencies and/or potential violations during the Full Evaluation. For example, images taken from the field,
permits, elevation certificates, etc.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
36
555
3.7 Transition From Phase 1 to Phase 2
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
The final process step in Phase 1 Audit is for the Auditor to confirm whether the community has completed
the NFIP Compliance Audit process (Phases 1 – 3) or whether the community will require Phase 2 Audit
Follow-up & Technical Assistance. To ensure that the status of the community is well documented, Auditors
must record this decision output in the tools. This is necessary for audits completed after the Diagnostic
Assessment and those that included a Full Evaluation. Communities without a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA), not in the Community Rating System, without pre-FIRM policies, or having little or no development
since their last audit are the most likely candidates for not requiring Phase 2. Most communities that
progress to the Full Evaluation stage in the Audit Phase will have at least some issues that require
remediation.
565
566
567
The process step in the NFIP Compliance Audit in which the Auditor must determine whether the
community’s journey through the NFIP Compliance Audit process is complete or whether the community will
progress to Phase 2 is identified in Figure 22.
568
569
FIGURE 22: T RANSITION TO PHASE 2
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
37
570
571
572
To ensure that FEMA has accurate and reliable information on the community’s status within the NFIP
Compliance Audit process, Auditors must capture whether Phase 2 is needed in both the DAT and Full
Evaluation Tool, as shown in Figure 23.
573
574
FIGURE 23: EXAMPLE OF ELEMENT TO CAPTURE TRANSITION TO PHASE 2
575
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
38
577
4. Phase 2 Audit Follow-Up & Technical
Assistance
578
4.1 Overview
579
580
581
582
583
If potential issues and violations are identified through the audit, the community is moved to Phase 2: Audit
Follow-Up & Technical Assistance. In Phase 2, the Auditor tracks the status of the community’s progress in
resolving any deficiencies or violations found during the audit, as well as technical assistance provided in
support of remedying issues to the maximum extent practicable. Completion of Phase 2 occurs upon any of
the following scenarios:
576
584
•
The community successfully resolves all issues and violations to the maximum extent practicable
585
586
•
While working with FEMA or the state to resolve issues, the duration of time since the last audit
reaches 5 years, triggering a new compliance audit
587
588
589
•
Following repeated attempts to resolve issues through technical assistance, the community no
longer demonstrates willingness to enter into compliance with NFIP regulations, whereby, at the
Region’s discretion, the community is moved to Phase 3 Enforcement.
590
591
592
593
594
595
In Phase 2 of the NFIP Compliance Audit, Auditors work closely with communities to resolve their floodplain
management program deficiencies and violations discovered during the audit. In the redesigned audit
process, communities do not receive follow-up and assistance until after the audit has been completed. This
is critical to ensuring FEMA captures a snapshot of the community’s floodplain management program health
at a point in time. This is a living document and will be updated as FPM progresses with redesigning key
elements of the future audit process.
596
597
TOOLS: Phase 2 Audit Follow-Up & Technical Assistance
598
599
Deficiencies and Violations Tracker – A tracking tool for recording and monitoring deficiencies
and/or potential violations stemming from Phase 1 Audit.
600
601
602
Audit Follow-Up & Assistance Chronology Tracker – A new tracking tool for documenting technical
assistance provided to communities in an effort to help resolve deficiencies and/or potential
violations stemming from Phase 1 Audit.
603
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
39
604
Features and Tools
605
A Violations and Deficiencies Data Dictionary
606
607
A future state Violations Tracker to monitor program deficiencies & violations, including type,
description, status, and timeframes to resolve
608
609
610
Follow-Up & Technical Assistance Chronology Tracker to document the Auditor’s efforts in helping
communities to resolve their floodplain management program deficiencies and violations, with
ability to generate a report for Probation Justification if needed
611
612
Activities
613
614
Findings from Phase 1 indicate whether community requires Audit Follow-Up and Technical
Assistance.
615
616
Auditor uses the Violations and Deficiencies Data Dictionary to tailor assistance provided to the
community to help resolve discovered issues.
617
Auditor monitors community progress in remedying issues found.
618
Auditor tracks technical assistance provided to the community.
619
620
Phase 2 complete after either: (1) the community has remedied issues; (2) a new audit is
triggered; or (3) enforcement is initiated.
621
622
Intended Outcomes
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
Ability to document, track, and classify deficiencies and violations with greater consistency and
efficiency, including how long it takes a community to resolve these issues, plus the work it takes
FEMA and states.
One of the Compliance Committee’s key objectives in FY23 is to refine the
guidance and processes for (1) providing support to communities in
resolving floodplain management program deficiencies and violations;
and (2) transferring over compliance cases from the states to Regions for
enforcement action.
631
4.2 Deficiencies and the National Violations Tracker (Future)
632
633
634
635
636
The current CIS has a National Violations Tracker. In the future, as part of the NFIP Compliance Audit
Redesign, the FPM Compliance Committee proposes the development of a new module in CIS to capture and
document additional issues resulting from the audit. These data needs—notably, floodplain management
program deficiencies—are not currently being tracked within CIS. Proposed data fields to track in a future
Deficiencies and Violations tracker include:
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
40
637
•
CID – the community’s Community ID number
638
•
County – the community’s county
639
•
Category – the category of the issue (deficiency or violation)
640
•
Type – the type of deficiency or violation (e.g., structure below BFE)
641
•
Address – the address of the structural violation (if applicable)
642
•
Latitude – the latitude of the structural violation (if applicable)
643
•
Longitude – the longitude of the structural violation (if applicable)
644
•
Zip – the Zip Code of the structural violation (if applicable)
645
•
Zone – the SFHA zone of the structural violation (if applicable)
646
•
Remedial Action – the action required to remedy the issue prescribed by the Auditor
647
•
Timeframe – the length of time the Auditor identified for the community to resolve the issue
648
•
Status – the current status of the issue (open or closed)
649
650
•
Status Update – the Auditor should be able to enter multiple status updates to document the
community’s progress in resolving issues recorded, including if any timeframes required extension
651
652
•
Auditor Actions – the Auditor may choose to enter and track any actions required on their behalf
(e.g., sending a document or file to the community)
653
654
•
Auditor Action Deadline – if the Auditor chooses to enter and track any actions required on their
behalf, they should enter a date here
655
•
Date Resolved/Closed– date the community resolved the issue to maximum extent practicable
656
657
658
659
Where possible, these data elements should auto-populate (e.g., County, etc.) into the Deficiencies and
Violations Tracker. Furthermore, these data entries must be associated with the specific compliance audit
case the Auditor recently completed (e.g., a user should be able to identify in CIS that these issues were
discovered from a particular audit).
660
4.3 Audit Follow-Up & Assistance Chronology
661
662
663
664
665
The Compliance Committee also proposes having the ability to track technical assistance provided to
communities in support of resolving any issues from the audit. Some communities may have hundreds of
structural violations entered into the Deficiencies and Violations Tracker following an audit. Additionally,
underserved/under-resourced communities may need more time to resolve issues or need more technical
assistance from evaluators.
666
4.4 Carry Over of Violations/Deficiencies
667
668
669
670
671
672
In cases where there are severe floodplain management program deficiencies and violations, it may take the
community some time to resolve issues found during the audit, especially in underserved or under-resourced
communities. As part of the new NFIP Compliance Audit, Regional and state Auditors will have discretion in
working with the community to develop a remedial action plan tailored to the capability, capacity, and
training needs of the specific community. The goal of this effort is to assist the community in resolving
program deficiencies and violations to the maximum extent practicable. However, if the parties cannot agree
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
41
673
674
on a remedial plan, FEMA has the discretion to impose a remedial plan on the community, consistent with its
enforcement powers under 44 CFR § 59.24.
675
676
677
678
679
680
If a community is still working with the FEMA Region or state to meet the milestones agreed upon in its
remedial action plan after five (5) years, the need for a new compliance audit will be triggered in the CEPT.
Another audit is necessary to ensure FEMA has accurate and reliable data on every community’s compliance
with NFIP regulations. Any remaining violations or deficiencies open in the Deficiencies and Violations
Tracker could “port over” to the Phase 2 module for review by the Auditor in charge of the next compliance
audit (who may or may not be different from the previous Auditor).
681
4.5 Information Requests
682
683
684
685
686
Due to the “quantitative “nature of this proposed compliance audit program, it is likely that local
communities will want to request information from FEMA on the scoring and evaluation findings from a
completed audit. In cases where the local community requests information following its audit, the following
procedures should be applied. A requestor may also submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for
this information by visiting https://www.fema.gov/about/offices/administrative/foia.
687
4.5.1 Community Request Procedures
688
A community that is requesting information on its audit score shall provide the following to the Auditor:
689
690
•
A written statement that identifies the information that is being requested from FEMA that includes
the date of the request.
691
692
•
The name, mailing address, telephone number, email address (if applicable), and organizational
affiliation (if any) of the individual making the information request.
693
694
695
•
The requestor should use the subject line “Request for Information submitted under FEMA
Community Audit Program,” and include the name and community identification number for the
community making the request.
696
697
698
699
•
If the requested information contains Personal Identifying Information (PII), the requesting
jurisdiction will be required to have an Information Sharing Access Agreement (ISAA) in place. To
complete this request, please visit the following link to complete this form:
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ISAA-CTPs_06302022.docx
700
4.5.2 Response
701
702
703
Within 10 business days, FEMA will notify the requestor of receipt of the information request. The
appropriate office will evaluate the request and prepare a response. If FEMA determines that the information
request has merit, the information will be provided to the requestor within 45 calendar days of the request.
704
4.5.3 Request for Reconsideration
705
706
707
708
If the community believes that something was missed or misinterpreted during the community audit process,
or if a community believes that there is an error in the audit findings, it may request a reconsideration of
audit findings. A request for reconsideration must be submitted to the FEMA Regional Office, Attn: Director,
Mitigation Division, within 30 days of receipt of the closure of the audit.
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
42
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
A request for reconsideration must be based on the program components reviewed during the community
audit process. The request must include a description of how the community thinks its program differs from
that observed by the Auditor, describe the error or misrepresentation, and include supporting documentation
to validate its case. FEMA will review requests for reconsideration. A meeting may be held, depending upon
the need for additional communication, with the Auditor, the local community, and other interested parties.
FEMA will provide a written response to the community’s request for reconsideration. If FEMA determines
that the request for reconsideration is without merit, the requestor will be so notified.
716
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
43
717
5. Phase 3 Enforcement
718
719
720
721
722
The exploration of Phase 3 Enforcement is in its infancy stages in the NFIP Compliance Audit Redesign.
FPM’s Probation Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) stands as a successful first step in developing
enhanced guidance between key stakeholders to support enforcement actions when necessary. A series of
non-regulatory best practices for initiating probation, referred to as “Non-regulatory Pre-Probation” is shown
in Figure 24.
723
724
FIGURE 24: FEMA FPM PROBATION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
44
725
Appendix A: Acronyms
BFE
Base Flood Elevation
BLE
Base-Level Engineering
CAC
Community Assistance Contact
CAV
Community Assistance Visit
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
CEPT
Community Engagement Prioritization Tool
CIS
Community Information System
CIS MOD
Community Information System Modernization
CLOMR
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
DAT
Diagnostic Assessment Tool
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FET
Full Evaluation Tool
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS
Flood Insurance Study
FPA
Floodplain Administrator (community official)
FPM
FEMA Floodplain Management Program
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
H&H
Hydrology and Hydraulics
LOMA
Letter of Map Amendment
LOMC
Letter of Map Changes
LOMR
Letter of Map Revision
LOMR-F
Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
MSC
FEMA Map Service Center
NFHL
National Flood Hazard Layer
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
POC
Point of Contact
SD
Substantial Damage
SFHA
Special Flood Hazard Area
SI
Substantial Improvement
726
INTERIM NFIP COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE SEPTEMBER 2022
45
| File Type | application/pdf |
| Author | Gleisberg_Jack@bah.com |
| File Modified | 2023-06-14 |
| File Created | 2023-06-14 |