1. FEMA’s Flood Risk Review Meeting: Building Confidence in Risk MAP Products 2012 ASFPM National Conference San Antonio, Texas May 24, 2012 2:00 pm

2. 2 Presentation Outline  Risk MAP Overview  Risk MAP and Flood Risk Review  Case Study: Butler County, Ohio Flood Risk Review Meeting  Conclusions & Recommendations

3. 3 Risk MAP Overview  Risk Mapping Assessment & Planning (MAP) Mapping – Flood Hazard and Risk Identification Assessment – HAZUS and other Risk Assessment tools Planning – Hazard Mitigation Plans  Risk MAP Mission Conducted at watershed level Deliver quality data Communicate more effectively about flood risk to citizens Inspire mitigation actions that reduce risk

4. 4 The Risk MAP Overview Risk MAP Program Objectives Through collaboration with State, Local, and Tribal entities, Risk MAP will deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action that reduces risk to life and property.

5. 5 Risk MAP Overview and Flood Risk Review  Quality Data Flood Risk Review is to assure additional collaboration occurs Result is better data that is supported by stakeholders  Public Awareness Flood Risk Review is to assure stakeholders understand the data, datasets, and products Understanding promotes better awareness  Action that Reduces Risk Flood Risk Review is to discuss how stakeholders can use data and information to promote risk reduction Communicate the technical aspects of data development and output for future use in risk reduction actions Quality DataPublic AwarenessAction that Reduces Risk

6. 6 Risk MAP Overview and Flood Risk Review  Added new products  Added new datasets  Added new meetings Flood Risk Review Flood Risk Database Flood Risk Map Flood Risk Report Ad-Hoc & User-Defined Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping Flood Depth & Analysis Grids Flood Risk Assessment Data Areas of Mitigation Interest Changes Since Last FIRM

7. 7 Risk MAP Timeline Risk MAP 3 - 5 years G DE F BA Resilience Meeting  Review Potential actions to incorporate into mitigation plans Preliminary FIRM Issuance FIRM Effective Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) Meeting/ Open House Items Presented:  FIRM (Regulatory)  Final Risk MAP Products (Flood Risk Map, Report, & Data Sets) Optional Flood Risk Review Meeting Items Presented:  Risk MAP Products (Flood Risk Map, Report, & Data Sets) Discovery Meeting Items Presented:  Updated Discovery Map  Draft Project Plan  Draft Project Charter CF Changes Since Last Map & Impacts Planning Execution A. Planning & Budgeting (3 Mos.) B. Discovery (2-4 Mos.) C. Data Development & Sharing (9-15 Mos.) D. Risk Awareness & Mitigation Outreach (1-3 Mos.) E. Proposed NFIP Map Changes & Impacts (1-3 Mos.) F. Preliminary NFIP Map Release & Mitigation Planning (1-3 Mos.) G. Due Process & Path Forward (9-15 Mos.)

8. 8 Flood Risk Review Meeting  Meeting Objectives Quality Data Public Awareness Action that Reduces Risk Quality DataPublic AwarenessAction that Reduces Risk

9. 9 Flood Risk Review Meeting – Quality Data  History of floodplain mapping and previous projects  Present Risk MAP products to technical stakeholders Discuss input and output engineering data Illustrate best available and most recent data Confirm whether information is accurate Obtain additional information about new study areas Public AwarenessAction that Reduces Risk

10. 10 Flood Risk Review Meeting – Public Awareness  Non-regulatory products and datasets  Review and discuss the mapping project data development methods and workmaps Engineering assumptions  Involve stakeholders to spread message State NFIP Coordinator and SHMO Federal and State Agencies Local Community Officials, FPAs, Planners, EMA Officials, etc  Additional Collaboration Quality DataAction that Reduces Risk

11. 11 Flood Risk Review Meeting – Action that Reduces Risk  Communicating non-regulatory products and datasets  Using non-regulatory products and datasets Using Risk MAP provided information to enhance local data and vice versa  Products used for making decisions to reduce flood risk  Benefits of and resources for local communication about risk to residents Quality DataPublic Awareness

12. 12 Butler County, OH Meeting Topics  History of floodplain mapping in area  Physical Map Revisions (PMRs) and levees  Data development  Non-regulatory products and datasets  Use of non-regulatory products

13. 13 Butler County – Quality Data  History of Flood Studies Original studies performed in 1980’s and early 1990’s Map Modernization project created digital countywide product and incorporated new studies and LOMR’s for several streams  Effective in 2010 “Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan” developed in 2011 by County EMA Several communities had long-standing concerns about the accuracy of the floodplain mapping Public AwarenessAction that Reduces Risk

14. 14 Butler County – Quality Data  Physical Map Revision Project (PMR) developed data for a mapping update: Scoping Meeting held on December 21, 2009 100 miles of updated detailed studies 11 miles of new limited detailed studies 31 miles of updated approximate studies – replaces all effective Zone A’s FIS report and 93 FIRM panel revisions  Levee Mapping in Hamilton and Middletown Levee accreditation process is pending Public AwarenessAction that Reduces Risk

15. 15 Butler County – Quality Data  Hydrology - Previous studies Mostly ODNR regression equations (Bulletins No. 32, 43 and 45) HEC-1 Rainfall/Runoff Model  East Fork Mill Creek, Gregory Creek, Millers Creek, Shaker Creek Gage Analysis  Great Miami River – 67 years of record  Hydrology - New studies USGS Regression equations from 2006 HEC-HMS Rainfall/Runoff Model  Considers land use and regional detention facilities in analysis  Bull Run/Collins Creek, East Branch Pleasant Run, East Fork Mill Creek, Four Mile Creek, Gregory Creek, High School Tributary, Mill Creek, Millers Creek, Shaker Creek, Tributary to East Fork Mill Creek, Tributary to Pleasant Run Branch No. 4, Two Mile Creek Gage Analysis  Great Miami River – 86 years of record Public AwarenessAction that Reduces Risk

16. 16 Butler County – Quality Data  Hydraulics - Previous studies Mostly HEC-2 hydraulic model software Field survey data from the time of study  Hydraulics - New studies All studies used HEC-RAS hydraulic model software  Unsteady Flow modeling for Millers and Shaker Creek Stream channel and floodplain geometry from field survey data and 2008 OGRIP data – 2.5 foot DEM (4-foot contours) New Water Surface Elevation profiles calculated  Detailed and Limited Detailed Studies published in FIS  Approximate studies profiles viewable in HEC-RAS format New Floodway Analyses - Detailed Studies only Incorporated existing bridges and culverts Floodplains delineated using up-to-date topographic data – 2008 OGRIP Public AwarenessAction that Reduces Risk

17. 17 Butler County – Public Awareness  Review of the Flood Risk Dataset and Products  Flood Risk Datasets Changes Since Last FIRM (CSLF) Depth Grids Study Data Flood Risk Products Flood Risk Database Flood Risk Report Flood Risk Map Flood Risk Database Flood Risk Report CSLFDepth Grid Quality DataAction that Reduces Risk

18. 18  Depth Grids Butler County – Public Awareness Quality DataAction that Reduces Risk  Show flood inundation as a function of an event’s magnitude or severity  Show that flood risk varies within the floodplain  Demonstrate the risks associated with different flood depths.

19. 19  Changes Since Last FIRM Butler County – Public Awareness  Identify areas and types of flood zone change: Compares current effective (previous) with proposed (new) flood hazard mapping. (all inputs must be digital) Flood zone changes are categorized and quantified  Offers transparency and answers to: Where have my flood hazards increased or decreased? Why have my flood hazards increased or decreased? Which communities are subject to new base flood elevations (BFEs) or ordinance adjustments?  Provide study/reach level rationale for changes including: Methodology and assumptions Changes of model inputs or parameters

20. 20  Contributing Engineering Factors (CEF) Butler County – Public Awareness Quality DataAction that Reduces Risk

21. 21 Butler County – Action that Reduces Risk  Discussion of Communicating Risk Benefits of sharing flood risk information Other Resources Emphasized using the data to communicate risk and impact mitigation, not just evaluate insurance Community Awareness CSLF New Study Data Flood Risk Products Citizen engagement, community commitment, and mitigation action

22. 22 Butler County – Action that Reduces Risk  From the 2011 Butler County “Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan” Action Items: “Develop accurate flood insurance maps for the county” and “Inform insurance agents and public of the National Flood Insurance Program and FEMA floodplain regulations.”  Helps identify where households and businesses are affected by map changes Targeted Outreach Raise Risk Awareness  Helps Local Officials explain Map Changes Contributing Engineering Factors Visually, Areas of Change are easily recognized Quality DataPublic Awareness

23. 23 Butler County – Action that Reduces Risk  From the 2011 Butler County “Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan” Action Item: “Identify and inventory all structures that are subject to flood damage, including critical facilities and repetitive loss properties and prepare feasibility studies pertaining to potential future projects to alleviate issues.”  Risk is not uniform and varies by location  Use Grids to identify areas most at risk from severe flooding FIRMs show extent of flooding Grids identify areas of highest flood risk Serve as pre-screening criteria for mitigation Identify areas to prioritize mitigation projects  Depth of flooding over roadways Quality DataPublic Awareness

24. 24 Opportunities for Future Meetings  Encourage Active Participation by Stakeholders  Multiple Breakout Sessions instead of 1 at the end  Survey Forms or Worksheets  Maintain Focus on Risk – not just Flood Insurance implications of the new technical data

25. 25 Successes  Stakeholders were interested in the technical / engineering focus  Tying the Flood Risk Products to the County Mitigation Plan was well-received  Flood Risk Products for use in Emergency Mgmt was well-received

26. 26  Mike Hanke – FEMA Region V Michael.Hanke@fema.dhs.gov  Nathan Beach, PE, CFM – STARR Nathan.Beach@stantec.com questions and answers