CNMS and FOA: A Year in Review. Rick Sacbibit, P.E. Andy Read, CFM FEMA HQ, Risk Analysis Division June 4, 2015

Transcription

1 CNMS and FOA: A Year in Review Rick Sacbibit, P.E. Andy Read, CFM FEMA HQ, Risk Analysis Division June 4, 2015

2 Overview Current NVUE Status NVUE Cliff Update on CNMS Web Viewer CNMS Guidance Updates FOA Considerations Questions 2

3 CNMS: Current Status of NVUE National NVUE Attained Summary Table: FY15 - Q2 by FEMA Region Within Full Inventory Region VALID Miles Total Inventory Full Inventory Denominator Miles As of 03/31/2015 NVUE % Attained Total Inventory NVUE Initiated Miles Total Inventory NVUE % Attained + Initiated Total Inventory 01 7,435 32, % % 02 13,464 32, % % 03 46,337 80, % 1, % , , % 9, % 05 60, , % 9, % 06 67, , % 9, % , , % 5, % 08 11,461 63, % % 09 26,596 59, % 1, % 10 3,747 43, % 3, % National 555,393 1,123, % 42, % 3

4 NVUE: By State/Territory (Top and Bottom 10 FY15 Q2) Idaho 2.0% Virgin Islands 7.8% Wyoming 10.1% Alaska 10.7% Oregon 10.8% Washington 11.4% Montana 11.6% Illinois 17.0% Utah 18.3% Vermont 19.2% HAC/SAC expressed interest in how FEMA is monitoring the health of the mapping inventory using CNMS and NVUE South Carolina 93.5% Maryland 92.9% Kentucky 90.9% North Carolina 87.8% District of Columbia 87.6% Georgia 84.3% Tennessee 83.1% Pennsylvania 83.0% Hawaii 79.6% Michigan 79.5% 4

5 3 Categories of NVUE: Annual Inventory Management Decisions Assessed miles that become Valid FY15 Plan to Study 9,000 Miles Assessed miles that turn Unverified ~555,000 NVUE- Compliant Miles ~127,000 Unverified Miles ~448,000 Unknown Miles ~145,000 Miles expiring in FY15 and need reassessment 5

6 NVUE Cliff REGION FY15 Q1 Full Inventory Denom. FY15 Q1 Full Inventory VALID Miles NVUE Losses to Decay by FY and QTR (Detailed and Approximate Combined) FY15Q1 FY15Q2 FY15Q3 FY15Q4 FY16Q1 FY16Q2 FY16Q3 FY16Q ,569 7, , ,913 13, , , ,093 46, ,016 29, ,317 1, , ,184 2, ,885 2,167 15, ,716 32, ,853 59,898 16, ,607 1,412 4,325 7,889 9, ,415 66, ,504 6,674 7,613 32, ,761 2, , ,276 42,108 27,292 1,490 2,261 9,336 36, ,555 11, , ,274 1, ,168 26,864 15, , ,783 4, Total 1,123, ,622 79,112 32,324 14,506 19, , ,040 59,514 6,760 6

7 CNMS: Web Application 7

8 CNMS: Web Application Enhancement allows local/state officials and other endorsed stakeholders to input mapping requests into CNMS Requires account creation and approval by Regional CNMS Administrator Adding requests not open to the public Updated quarterly 8

9 CNMS: Guidance/Technical Reference Updates Future Updates to CNMS include: Coastal CNMS Validation Criteria Adding coastal attribution to CNMS linework Adding levee considerations into CNMS framework to identify areas impacted by updated levee mapping policy Expanding CNMS functionality into other systems for better integration Ex: Enhancing our monthly reports to Congress; tracking model-backed Zone A streams; calling out validation criteria for better awareness 9

10 First Order Approximation (FOA) What is it? Pilot project initiated in late 2013 (SC, ME, NV) Highly automated process whereby flooding sources within the flood risk project area are modeled and mapped What s it used for? Assessing/validating the unknown inventory at lower costs than standard production rates Help in estimating the potential changes/impacts if additional data development activities are undertaken Providing additional value to other program areas (regulatory updates, best available data in unmapped areas, non-reg datasets, LOMA processing for Zone As, etc.) Guidance resulting from FOA Pilot H&H and mapping methodology Recommended Zone A validation procedure using FOA data 10

11 FOA: Applicable Risk MAP Program Standards SID #17 (Program Standard: Project Planning) Discovery is a mandatory element of all Flood Risk Projects, and must be conducted on the same scale at which the Flood Risk Project is initiated. All watershed-based Discovery must be initiated at a geographic footprint no larger than the HUC-8 level. (Effective July 31, 2013) SID #29 (Program Standard: Stakeholder Engagement) During Discovery, data must be identified that illustrates potential changes in flood elevation and mapping that may result from the proposed project scope. If available data does not clearly illustrate the likely changes, an analysis is required that estimates the likely changes. This data and any associated analyses must be shared and results must be discussed with stakeholders. (Effective July 31, 2013) 11

12 First Order Approximation Process & Methodology Terrain Best Available Data (LiDAR, 10m DEMs, etc.) 12

13 First Order Approximation Process & Methodology Hydrology Regression Equations (most often Rural) Gage Analysis used where necessary 1%- 1% 1%+ Flows calculated for the 10%, 4%, 2%, 1%, and 0.2% annual chance events Flows calculated for the 1%+ ( plus ) and 1%- ( minus ) events 13

14 First Order Approximation Process & Methodology Hydraulics Automated cross-section placement (minimal manual adjustments) No hydraulic structures Profiles calculated for each flood event (10%, 4%, 2%, etc.) Editable models as output (most commonly HEC-RAS) 14

15 First Order Approximation Process & Methodology Mapping 1% profile is mapped automated techniques can be used to smooth floodplain edges, but raw output is also acceptable Other profiles may be mapped as deemed necessary Water Surface Elevation and Depth Grids may also be produced as a by-product 15

16 First Order Approximation Process and Methodology Summary of Outputs GIS Data Cross-sections Stream centerlines Floodplain boundaries WSEL and Depth grids Hydraulic Models Metadata Report 16

17 First Order Approximation Validation and Comparison Uses Objectives Develop a repeatable and technically defensible approach for validating modelbacked and non-model-backed Zone A studies Provide comparison data that supports KDP 1 17

18 Validation Process for Zone A Miles Identify Unknown or Expiring Zone A Miles A4 Study backed by technical data? YES Change study to VALID in the CNMS database A1 Significant Topography Update Check YES NO STUDY PASSES FOA COMPARISON A2 Significant Hydrology Change Check Study passes all initial assessment checks? NO First Order Approximation data available? YES A5 First Order Approximation comparison A3 Significant Development Check (NUCI analysis) NO Change study to UNVERIFIED in the CNMS database STUDY FAILS FOA COMPARISON 18

19 First Order Approximation How can it be used for other program uses? FOA investments can be leveraged by other areas of the Risk MAP program outside of CNMS By leveraging FOA outputs the program can realize cost reduction in other areas where applicable FOA outputs can be leveraged to improve the active engagement of communities and other stakeholders 19

20 First Order Approximations: Additional program benefits Regulatory map production Reduces costs for future Zone A studies by developing baseline data; also has potential to be regulatory-quality in areas with high-resolution topography Non-regulatory products Similar to regulatory products, FOA will help communicate flood risks to community officials and property owners Outreach and communications FOA can improve the ability of a community to plan and take actions to reduce risks in areas with no regulatory products MT-1 Processing Reduce cost to process LOMAs in Zone A areas Targeted Pre-Screening of higher risk properties 10% and 4% annual chance FOA results can be provided to communities to use as a high hazard pre-screening layer. Communities seeking to improve flood risk communications and identify mitigation options can collect additional data on these properties to enhance their flood risk assessments. 20

21 21