The New FIS Report: What Has Changed and What Does the Future Hold? May 17, 2011 Andy Bonner, PE, CFM – BakerAECOM Scott McAfee, CFM, GISP – FEMA Turgay.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In coordination with FEMA Kickoff Meeting Riverside County, CA May 27, 2010.
Advertisements

28 March 2003e-MapScholar: content management system The e-MapScholar Content Management System (CMS) David Medyckyj-Scott Project Director.
THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT D ETERMINE F LOOD R ISK H OW TO U SE THE FEMA M AP S ERVICE C ENTER Start.
Flood Map Modernization in North Dakota North Dakota State Water Commission FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION.
Regulations and Processes for Floodway/Non-Encroachment Area Encroachments. What to look for and what to require. Robert Billings, PE, PH, CFM Mecklenburg.
FEMA’s Flood Risk Review Meeting: Building Confidence in Risk MAP Products 2012 ASFPM National Conference San Antonio, Texas May 24, :00 pm.
CAPTURE SOFTWARE Please take a few moments to review the following slides. Please take a few moments to review the following slides. The filing of documents.
Using Mitigation Planning to Reduce Disaster Losses Karen Helbrecht and Kathleen W. Smith United States: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) May.
FEMA Update: Flood Map Modernization and Risk MAP Presented on behalf of FEMA by David I. Maurstad, PBS&J.
Digital Data and Modeling Repository ASFPM - May 22, 2012.
DRAFT SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES CLIMATE ADAPTATION GUIDEBOOK Kate Marshall, SRA International, Inc. (703) ,
Update on Use of Hazus for FEMA Risk MAP Flood Risk Products Shane Parson – RAMPP PTS (URS)
Risk MAP and Discovery FEMA Region [#], [WATERSHED NAME] Watershed Discovery Meetings [DATE]
Duval County: Using the power of SWMM unsteady modeling for CLOMR applications May , Louisville KY José Maria Guzmán, P.E. D.WRE Gaston Cabanilla,
Resilience Meeting: [Watershed Name] [LOCATION] [DATE]
Flood Risk Mapping Project Identifying the Risk Editorial Board Meeting [COMMUNITY NAME] Flood Risk Mapping Project.
1 Changes to Alabama Flood Maps Impacts to Flood Insurance Presented By: Leslie A. Durham, P.E. ADECA Office of Water Resources January 23, 2014.
Floodplain Boundary Standard A Coastal Perspective May 23, 2012 Mark Zito, GISP, CFM CDM Smith Alex Sirotek, CFM CDM Smith RSC 1 Lead.
Risk Map Early Demonstration Project Lackawanna County, PA CCO Meeting September 13, 2011.
Proven People... Proven Technology... Proven Results Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Management Module Katherine Hermann, CFM, Dewberry Ken Logsdon,
Flood Risk Mapping Project Editorial Board Meeting [COMMUNITY NAME]
CHAPTER 3 MAPS AND MAP CHANGES
Homepage To learn about eLOMA click on the ‘Learn about eLOMA’ link under the Tools For Professionals.
Creating Depth Grid from a DFIRM FEMA Region VIII Mitigation GIS Team Wednesday, February 13, 2013.
Flood Risk Review Meeting: [Watershed Name] [LOCATION] [DATE]
Using Digital Flood Hazard Data in the National Flood Insurance Program FGDC Coordination Working Group Scott McAfee Paul Rooney April 5 th, 2005.
COMPREHENSIVE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT : Promoting Wise Uses of Floodplains CA Department of Water Resources/ CIFMCG Workshop July 2006.
Regulatory Products Training July 30, Introduction and Overview This training covers Regulatory Product Guidance and Technical Reference updates.
Flood Risk Datasets & Products in Greenville County, South Carolina Agenda Greenville Co, SC Overview Process, Examples, Lessons Learned, and Community.
‘Community Resilience Toolbox’ Training Series: Leveraging Public and Community Data to Assess Local Flood Risk Thursday, September 26, :00–1:00.
Creating Value … … Delivering Solutions Modeling 72-Miles of the Mississippi on a 2-Mile Budget Mohamed A. Bagha, P.E., CFM Dong Nguyen, P.E., CFM Pradeepa.
The rFHL/NFHL: What’s In It For Me (WIIFM). 2 What is the NFHL?  National Flood Hazard Layer  FEMA’s most up-to-date flood hazard information  Database.
FLOOD STUDY Oswego County, NY FEMA REGION II February 7, 2011.
FEMA’s Coastal Mapping and Management Process. 2 2 Welcome  Background and Coastal study methodologies  Technical Opportunities  Management Opportunities.
2007 Microsoft Office System Overview 2007 Microsoft Office System Overview Elizabeth Caley Senior Product Manager Microsoft Canada.
Advances in Alluvial Fan Floodplain Delineation & Modeling A Call For Action ASFPM Arid Regions Committee May 2010.
North Carolina White Oak River Basin Plan December 19, 2000.
Resilience Meeting: [Watershed Name] [LOCATION] [DATE]
Office for Information Resources GIS Services Flood Map Modernization and the Tennessee Base Mapping Program Dennis Pedersen, Director F&A, OIR – GIS Services.
Flood Map Modernization Flood Map Modernization Mapping the Risk Editorial Board Meeting October 2005 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION V
Flood Map Modernization Flood Map Modernization Mapping the Risk Editorial Board Meeting [date] V [COMMUNITY NAME] FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION.
Insert Your Firm’s Logo Here
Risk MAP and Discovery FEMA Region [#], [WATERSHED NAME] Watershed Information Exchange Sessions [DATES]
Behind The Curtain: GIS and Floodplain Mapping Adam Daily, Bradford Hartley, & Adam Pooler GIS Analysts Stantec Consulting Services Inc Ohio GIS.
Intelligent Flood Maps forAutomatic Flood Determinations.
North Carolina Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan Final Scoping Meetings January 30 and 31, 2001.
Flood Map Modernization and North Dakota Julie Prescott, ND Map Modernization Coordinator North Dakota State Water Commission And Brian Fischer, CFM, GIS.
FEMA’s Risk MAP Coastal Updates – An Overview Jonathan E. Westcott, P.E. ASFPM 2012 National Conference San Antonio, TX Session D.8.
In coordination with FEMA Kickoff Meeting Ventura County, CA April 29, 2010.
A Great L-EAP Forward: Successes and Challenges in Implementing FEMA’s Expanded Appeals Process Todd Steiner FEMA Maggie Mathis, CFM RAMPP.
Discovery Meeting FEMA Region [#]. 2 Introductions.
Flood Map Modernization 1 1 MIP: SOMA. Flood Map Modernization 2 2 SOMA APPLICATION IN MIP MIP HOME PAGE.
1-Day of 2-D How Are The Results Of Hydraulic Models Used To Manage Floodplain Development Under The NFIP? Eric Simmons, FEMA Region IX.
Polk County Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps City of Windsor Heights Public Meeting Polk County Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
FLOOD STUDY Burlington County, NJ FEMA REGION II November 29, 2010.
FEMA Terms (Last updated July 25, 2006) The Acronyms  NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program  FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map  SFHA – Special Flood.
Northwest Florida Water Management District Monday, August 22, 2011.
1 Community Hydrology in a Watershed World The Fulton County Experience Amy Bergbreiter, PE, CFM Monica Urisko, PE, CFM.
Chapter – 8 Software Tools.
Summary of Changes from NHDinARC to NHDinGEO. Reach Application Several changes have taken place in the application of reaches in the NHDinGEO implementation.
Academic Computing Services 2007 Microsoft Word 2010 Publishing Long Documents This Guide will teach you how to work with long documents such as dissertations.
Oregon Statewide Flood Hazard Framework Geodatabase and Web Library, version 1.0 Seamless statewide GIS floodplain element that conforms to standards adopted.
Formal Report Strategies. Types of Formal Reports Informational Presents Info Analytical Presents Info Analyses info and draws conclusions Recommendation.
Polk County Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps City of Clive Public Meeting Polk County Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps November.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Huntington District Floodplain Management Services Dan Bailey, CFM Huntington District August 2012.
Prince George’s County Flood Forum March 23, 2017
North Carolina Lumber River Basin Plan
Overview of FEMA’s Risk MAP Program & Taming the Terrain Beast
Risk MAP & the Little River Basin
Increased Efficiency and Effectiveness
Presentation transcript:

The New FIS Report: What Has Changed and What Does the Future Hold? May 17, 2011 Andy Bonner, PE, CFM – BakerAECOM Scott McAfee, CFM, GISP – FEMA Turgay Dabak, PhD, PE – BakerAECOM

2 Agenda  FEMA’s Long-Term Vision  FIRM & FIRM Database Updates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) FIRM Database Guidance Updates  Changes to the FIS Report Format & Organization Inclusion of Information Previously Found on the FIRMs Relation to FIRM Database Tables Usability Improvements Guidance Updates  Non-Countywide Regulatory Product Update Scenarios

3 Long-Term Vision  Goals of enhancing Regulatory Products More user friendly maps Geospatially aware datasets Easier to update the products and deliver them via the internet  Steps to achieving vision Map Modernization Risk MAP Future tool development

4 FIRM & FIRM Database Updates

5 Changes to FIRM - Overview  Improve ease of use of FIRM maps  Communicating Flood Insurance Zones more clearly  Update graphic specifications  Simplify map production

6 Changes to FIRM – Map Collar  Simplified Legend: focus on Flood Hazard Information  Condensed Notes to Users: most important notes remains on all maps  New Panel Locator: added for easier navigation and orientation

7 Changes to FIRM – Symbology  Focus on Flood Hazard Information Simplified symbology for water features, transportation, political boundaries and flood hazard boundary lines Relaxed labeling guidelines for base map features Removed benchmarks  New Flood Hazard Symbology  Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA)  “Shaded Zone X”  Other Areas FLOODWAY SPECIAL FLOODWAY ZONES A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V, VE PROTECTED BY ACCR. LEVEE FUTURE CONDITIONS “Shaded X” ZONE D ZONE X (NO SCREEN)

8 Changes to FIRM – Symbology  Floodway with Fringe and labeled Cross Sections  Detailed Study, Levee and Area Protected by Accredited Levee  Zone X and Zone D with Political Boundary

9 Changes to FIRM – Display of BFEs  Current FIRM Displayed as wavy lines drawn perpendicular to the stream Labeled with a flood elevation rounded to the nearest foot Accuracy impacted by rounding, interpolation and cartographic restrictions  New FIRM – Riverine channels Primary representation of BFEs are lettered and unlettered Cross Sections from the hydraulic model Labeled with a flood elevation rounded to the nearest 1/10 th of a foot Where the difference between Cross Sections is greater than one foot vertical rise, traditional wavy BFE lines with labels rounded to the nearest foot are added  New FIRM – Two-dimensional models and backwater areas No cross sections exist for these areas BFEs are displayed as traditional wavy BFE lines Labeled with a flood elevation rounded to the nearest foot

10 Changes to FIRM Database - Overview  Store all data needed to create Regulatory Products in FIRM Database Include all elements needed to automate FIRM creation Add tables/fields to store FIS Report elements  Remove elements no longer needed due to FIRM simplification

11 Changes to FIRM Database – Supports FIS report creation  Derivation of Data from Appendix L Most of the data shown in tables in the FIS Report can be derived from tables of the FIRM database as specified in Appendix L. Even complex tables can be created using spatial overlays  Examples of tables created from spatial overlays Flood Zone Designations by Community: spatial overlay of S_Pol_Ar and S_Fld_Haz_Ar Listing of NFIP Jurisdictions: spatial overlay of S_Pol_Ar joined to L_Comm_Info, S_FIRM_Pan, and S_Subbasins Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report: spatial overlay of S_Pol_Ar, S_Profil_Basln and/or S_Tsct_Basln, S_Fld_Haz_Ar, and S_Submittal_Info

12 FIRM & FIRM Database Guidance Updates  Updates of Appendices (K/L) Clarify/Improve User Guidance  Incorporate Procedural Memorandums  Streamlining text Identify Interdependencies of Appendices  Appendix M (Engineering): stores "raw" mapping data  Appendix L (FIRM DB): stores basemap data, "smoothed" floodplain boundaries and tables needed to create the FIS report  Appendix K: stores map making guidelines Clarify/outline deliverable formats  Personal Geodatabase and SHP will be submitted to MSC  MSC deliverable guidance document  Implementation of changes planned for FY11 funded studies

13 FIRM Database Build-Up

14 Changes to FIS Report - Overview  Reformat FIS Report document  Reorganize/add new sections to FIS Report  Incorporate full FIRM Legend & Notes to Users  Derive FIS Report tables directly from FIRM Database  Improve Usability

15  Reformat FIS Report Document Refresh Branding: Update FIS Report cover Changes to FIS Report

16  No more family on the cover anymore Changes to FIS Report

17  Reformat FIS Report Document Sections Added/Reorganized New Sections for: Coastal Analyses Alluvial Fan Analyses Levees Community Meetings Etc. Study-specific information presented in tabular format as much as possible Changes to FIS Report

18 Changes to FIS Report  Inclusion of FIRM-related Information Integrate FIRM Index into FIS Report  Simplified significantly  FIRM Panel Index, Political Areas, & Watershed Boundaries  Panel dates/Panel-Not-Printed notes kept on Index  11x17 fold-out  Map repositories and community dates are moved into FIS Report tables

19 Changes to FIS Report  Inclusion of FIRM-related Information Notes to Users & Full FIRM Legend moved to FIS Report

20 Changes to FIS Report  FIS Report Tables Derived from FIRM Database Sets the stage for future automation and production efficiencies FIRM Database – FIS Report Derivation Table in Procedure Memo Guidance FIS Report Table

21  Usability Improvements Interactive Table of Contents  Bookmarks link to section headings, tables, and figures Searchable text PDF – not a scan Tabular format  Less narrative and prose  Easier to search for study-specific information Editable (Microsoft Word) format template will be provided to Mapping Partners Changes to FIS Report

22 FIS Report Guidance Updates  FIS Report Procedure Memorandum FIS Report Template in Word Doc format  Editable  Boilerplate vs. Study-specific text highlighted in different colors for quick and easy replacing FIS Report Template in PDF format  Includes Flood Profile examples  Highlights PDF bookmarking guidance FIS Report Guidance document  Specific instructions regarding certain tables and figures  Table outlining derivation of FIS Report tables from Appendix L tables  Identification of sections of Appendix J that are superseded by the new PM  Watershed project considerations

23 Regulatory Products Summary  Simplify map production Alignment with FIRM DB & Set framework for on-demand mapping Clarity, Conciseness, Usability  Empowering tools through the data Move more toward digital products to drive digital consumption  Alignment toward Risk MAP goals Efficiencies through digital production Better risk communication

24 Regulatory Product Considerations: Non-Countywide Update Scenarios  Potential Project Scales for New Studies Watershed Coastal Other PMR  Effective Study Scenarios Countywide Partial Countywide Community-Based (Single Jurisdictions) Not previously mapped  Example: Watershed Study (same rules can be applied for other project scales)

25 Potential Scenarios  One Watershed Study – 5 Counties Affected

26 Potential Scenarios  Effective Studies – FIRM layouts

27 County 1: Update Options  FIRM Panels OPTION A Update only the panels affected by the new studies (following quad- based paneling scheme) and follow guidelines from PM 46 (Partial Countywide Mapping Evaluation) for remaining panels OPTION B Update all the panels in the county to countywide format

28 County 1: Update Options  FIRM Panels Updated FIRM Panels follow countywide format and the new Appendix K

29 County 1: Update Options  FIRM Panels Entire panel is updated based on new Appendix K standards Effective flooding from outside the watershed must be incorporated onto the panel Mappable LOMCs affecting an updated panel should be incorporated onto the FIRM as well

30 County 1: Update Options  FIS Report OPTION A Follow guidelines of PM 46 (Partial Countywide) OPTION B Consolidate all effective community-based FIS Reports into countywide format and update according to FIS Report PM

31 County 1: Update Options  FIRM Database OPTION A Create FIRM Database based on new Appendix L, incorporating all flood hazard data covering extents of FIRM panel updates Note: Extent of data incorporated within FIRM Database should correlate with decisions made on the FIRMs and FIS Report (inclusion of full or partial countywide data)

32 Potential Scenarios  Effective Studies – FIRM layouts

33 County 2: Update Options  FIRM Panels OPTION A Update only the panels affected by the new studies (following quad- based paneling scheme) and follow guidelines from PM 46 (Partial Countywide Mapping Evaluation) for remaining panels OPTION B Update all the panels in the county to countywide format

34 County 2: Update Options  FIRM Panels Updated FIRM Panels follow countywide format and the new Appendix K

35 County 2: Update Options  FIS Report OPTION A Follow guidelines of PM 46 (Partial Countywide) – add-on to previous partial countywide FIS Report OPTION B Consolidate all effective FIS Reports into countywide format and update according to FIS Report PM

36 County 2: Update Options  FIRM Database OPTION A Update existing partial countywide database with new information OPTION B Convert existing database into new Appendix L format and incorporate new data Note: Extent of data incorporated within FIRM Database should correlate with decisions made on the FIRMs and FIS Report (inclusion of full or partial countywide data)

37 Potential Scenarios  Effective Studies – FIRM layouts

38 County 3: Update Options  FIRM Panels OPTION A Update only the panels affected by the new studies to the new FIRM format

39 County 3: Update Options  FIRM Panels Updated FIRM Panels follow countywide format and the new Appendix K

40 County 3: Update Options  FIS Report OPTION A If only a small portion of the county is affected, keep countywide FIS Report in old format OPTION B Update the countywide FIS Report into the new format according to the FIS Report PM Note: Once a countywide FIS Report, always a countywide FIS Report (partial countywide FIS Reports not allowed)

41 County 3: Update Options  FIRM Database OPTION A Convert existing database into new Appendix L format and incorporate new data OPTION B Update existing countywide FIRM database with new information Note: Decision on whether to upgrade to the new FIRM database standard should be tied to decision to upgrade to new FIS Report format

42 Potential Scenarios  Effective Studies – FIRM layouts

43 County 4: Update Options  FIRM Panels, FIS Report, and FIRM Database OPTION A Since no new studies affect this county, no FIRM, FIS Report, or FIRM Database updates are anticipated OPTION B Modernize county (or the portions affected by the watershed) and follow new Appendix K, Appendix L, and FIS Report PM guidelines and PM 46 (Partial Countywide) – NOT COMMON

44 County 5: Update Options  FIRM Panels, FIS Report, and FIRM Database OPTION A Since no new studies affect this county, no FIRM, FIS Report, or FIRM Database updates are anticipated OPTION B Update effective countywide regulatory products based on new Appendix K, Appendix L, and FIS Report PM guidelines – NOT COMMON

45 Question and Answer Questions? Comments? Concerns? Andy Bonner: Scott McAfee: Turgay Dabak: