Implementation of Engineer Circular (EC) 1110-2-6067—USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Levee System Evaluation

Abstract

The final version of EC 1110-2-6067, “USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Levee System Evaluation” was released on 31 August, 2010. The EC supersedes draft Engineer Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-2-570, “Certification of Levee Systems for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)” which was issued in September, 2007 and all other related policy memoranda related to “certification”. The draft ETL (a) provided interim guidance to Corps offices for their use in supporting the FEMA NFIP, and (b) provided an opportunity to solicit comments and suggestions for improving the content and applicability of the ETL. The review generated more than 1,100 comments which were addressed and incorporated into the EC. This document is applicable for all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) riverine, lake, and coastal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) levee system evaluations. The purpose is to provide a consolidated document that will guide USACE procedures for levee system evaluations in support of the NFIP as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This EC will supplement and clarify existing policy, procedural, and technical guidance and provide an overview of documentation requirements. Technical and procedural guidance in this EC are intended solely for use in USACE process for NFIP levee system evaluation of existing and new levee systems; it is not intended as design guidance. The EC summarizes existing policy and guidance previously distributed among various USACE documents and provides policy and guidance about topics not previously covered in relation to “levee certifications”, such as (a) use of “NFIP levee system evaluation” rather than “certification” as it emphasizes the complete levee system’s status with regard to requirements of both 44 CFR 65.10 and USACE guidelines, (b) requiring submittal to FEMA of an evaluation report, as opposed to issuing just a “certification” letter, (c) clarification of technical areas to include earthen closures, ice, seismic criteria, channels, and flood fight activities, and (d) requiring a minimum of two feet of freeboard to match FEMA’s minimum requirement. This paper will present background and discussions surrounding the development of this guidance and focuses on topics that generated many of the 1100 comments.