Flood Plain Management 



Planning to perform effective site reviews of local implemenution, and should provide the 

 Division of Planning with duplicate files of all variance applications, allowing for review of 

 cumulative effects. 



In fact, flood data provided on inland area permits is generally minimal, 

 sufHcient only to establish the permit fee. Only one town in the state 

 (Harrington) consistently refers variance applications to the Division of 

 Planning, so that the Division cannot participate in review and has only a 

 limited notion of the degree to which variances are being issued in inland 

 areas. 



Implementation: CRMC 



In coastal areas, the situation is somewhat different. CRMC has incorporated the 

 federal construction and drainage requirements into the Red Book, and conditions 

 applications to conform to federal requirements. In general, town s hav e completely 

 transferred the administrative, technical, and political burden of NFIP implementation to 

 CRMC in coastal areas. Although municipalities may not issue permits for 

 development in flood hazard areas without CRMC approval, they may issue 

 letters to applicants stating that a building permit will be issued, upon 

 approval from CRMC. Partly because towns transfer responsibility in this manner, 

 CRMC has not attempted to establish regulatory measures which move 

 beyond the minimum federal requirements. (CRMC elevation requirements had 

 exceeded those of the federal regulations until a wave height factor was incorporated into 

 the federal regulations in 1980.) 



The extent to which CRMC could use its authority over coastal hazard mitigation to 

 supercede local floodplain management authority has not been tested- However, local 

 communities which have attempted to take initiative in restricting high 

 hazard area development through zoning controls, such as South 

 Kingstown, look to CRMC for support and need stronger regulatory 

 backing. 



Construction and reconstruction in coastal flood hazard areas is a major source of 

 controversy. The Hazard Mitigation Task Force recommended that developed barrier 

 beaches which sustain extensive storm damage be designated as undeveloped, and 

 therefore ineligible for certain federal construction and reconstruction subsidies. Similarly, 

 the State Planning Council, adopted a position in mid-1987 calling for establishment of a 

 procedure under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to allow addition of presently developed 

 barrier areas to the coastal barrier resources system at the time development conditions 

 change. 



CRMC prohibits construction on undeveloped dunes, prohibits 

 reconstruction on dunes when a structure has been damaged by 50 percent 

 or more, requires increased setbacks in these areas, and requires upgraded 

 building standards. However, the precise defmitions of threshold 

 destruction and "substantial improvement" have never been fully clarified, 

 for single structures or for whole barrier areas subject to potential redesignation. 



The method used in calculating whether an addition, alteration, or reconstruction 

 constitutes a "substantial improvement" is critical in determining the effectiveness of hazard 



203 



