Committee recommends excluding ASCE 7‑22 Supplement 2 from 24GP10‑53 and keeping Supplement 1

The BFRW recommended a change to code‑change proposal 24GP10‑53 to adopt ASCE 7‑22 with Supplement 1 but exclude Supplement 2, which would apply design loads in some cases to the 500‑year floodplain and could have broad regulatory and insurance implications.

Micah (WAVO) said the proponent asked that Supplement 2 be withdrawn from the state's pre‑adoption because of the potential cost impacts of enlarging regulated flood hazard areas and because coordination with ASCE 24 (flood‑design standard) had not occurred. "We definitely don't want to drive any additional costs for this advanced adoption of Supplement 2 that would increase that flood plain area to the 500 year risk category," Micah said.

John added that ASCE 7 and ASCE 24 should be considered together: "ASCE 7 and ASCE 24 have to kinda go forward together, and we hadn't done that coordination work," he said. Members noted that FEMA mapping and the NFIP remain based on the 100‑year floodplain and that adopting a 500‑year threshold would expand technical and regulatory obligations across jurisdictions.

The committee moved and seconded a recommendation to modify 24GP10‑53 to exclude Supplement 2 and keep Supplement 1; the motion passed by voice vote. The chair said the council will address the flood‑related changes during the 2027 code cycle when national standards and mapping work has matured.

Next steps: the BFRW recommendation will be transmitted to the full council for amendment of the CR102 filing for 24GP10‑53.