Discovery Meeting: Lake Ontario. FEMA REGION II November 12-14, 2013 and November 19-21, 2013 Lake Ontario Contributing Watersheds

Transcription

1 Discovery Meeting: Lake Ontario FEMA REGION II November 12-14, 2013 and November 19-21, 2013 Lake Ontario Contributing Watersheds

2 Introductions and Who s Here Project Team FEMA Region II Dewberry New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Local Stakeholders Invited Local Community Officials Non-Governmental Agencies Private Sector People/Organizations discussed during WebExs and on Data Worksheets 2

3 Agenda Introductions and Who s Here Purpose of this Meeting Risk MAP Program Overview Discovery Process Lake Ontario Coastal Study Mitigation Planning and Grants Risk Communication NFIP and Community Rating System Next Steps Group Breakout Discussions 3

4 Purpose of This Meeting Explain the Discovery process Share your concerns about flood risk Share any additional flood risk data you may have Discuss the Lake Ontario Coastal Flood Study Discuss how FEMA flood risk products can facilitate mitigation actions within your community 4

5 Shifting from MapMod to Risk MAP Risk MAP = Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning 5

6 What is Risk MAP (Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning)? Through collaboration with State, Local and Tribal entities, Risk MAP aims to deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action that reduces risk to life and property. You can use Risk MAP tools and data to: Improve and implement your Hazard Mitigation Plans Influence decisions about development, ordinances, and flood mitigation projects Communicate with citizens about flood risk 6

7 Discovery Process FEMA and communities discover and assess flood risk data Discovery Data Collection Period Stakeholder coordination and data analysis Discovery Meeting Initial Discovery Map Post-Meeting Review Final Discovery Map and Discovery Report 7

8 Discovery Products and Results Discovery Report Including summary of data, analysis, meetings, and action items or decisions Discovery Map Visual representation of meeting outcomes and feedback from stakeholders Project Study Areas National Metrics 8

9 Study Area Lake Ontario Watersheds 8 watersheds 17 counties 246 Communities Coastal Storm Flooding update 9

10 Discovery Map: Cataloging Mapping Needs 10

11 Discovery Map: Cataloging Mapping Needs 11

12 Data Collection and Collaboration Discovery is the process of data mining, collection, and analysis with the goal of investigating a flood risk or mitigation project or risk discussions within a watershed. The following data was researched and reviewed before the meeting: CRS, NFIP status MNUSS flood hazard mapping needs High Water Marks Dams and/or levees Mid-term Levee Inventory (MLI) Topo/Elevation Data Gages NHD streamline Various GIS data for the discovery products Structure Info (bridges, culverts) Average Annualized Loss data Repetitive Loss Data LOMCs Effective Data (FIS, DFIRM, FIRM) List of Communities & Contact Info Hazard Mitigation Plan (online) Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program grants received Individual or Public Assistance information Disaster history or history of disaster declarations 12

13 Sample of Data Collection Progress Data Types Deliverable/Product Source Average Annualized Loss Data Discovery Map Geodatabase Census 2010 and Hazus Coordinated Needs Management Strategy Discovery Map Geodatabase FEMA Declared Disasters Community Fact Sheets FEMA s Disaster Declarations Summary Dams and/or Levees Discovery Map Geodatabase USACE NYSDEC Demographics, Industry Community Fact Sheet Census Bureau, Hazard Mitigation Plans Effective Floodplains: Discovery Map Geodatabase FEMA's Mapping Information Platform Modernized SFHAs Coastal Gage Data Discovery Map Geodatabase USGS, NOAA CO-OPS Insurance Policies Community Fact Sheet CIS Letter of Map Change (LOMCs) Community Fact Sheet FEMA s Mapping Information Platform (known clusters on Discovery Map Geodatabase) Repetitive Loss Community Fact Sheet CIS Stream Gages Discovery Map Geodatabase USGS Insurance Policies Community Fact Sheet CIS BureauNet 13

14 Sample of Data Collection Progress Hazus-MH Average Annualized Loss (AAL) Building Loss (in thousands of dollars) Contents Loss (in thousands of dollars) Total Loss (in thousands of dollars) FIPS County Cayuga $20,000 $15,000 $35, Genesee $178,000 $276,000 $461, Hamilton $1,000 $2,000 $3, Herkimer $113,000 $89,000 $203, Jefferson $961,000 $751,000 $1,726, Lewis $837,000 $496,000 $1,360, Livingston $234,000 $214,000 $459, Monroe $3,420,000 $4,819,000 $8,469, Niagara $67,000 $68,000 $139, Oneida $57,000 $57,000 $117, Onondaga $1,000 $1,000 $2, Ontario $84,000 $127,000 $214, Orleans $64,000 $57,000 $122, Oswego $222,000 $195,000 $422, St. Lawrence $22,000 $42,000 $66, Wayne $672,000 $673,000 $1,367, Wyoming $239,000 $560,000 $833,000 Approved Hazard Mitigation Plans County Approval Date Plan Expiration Genesee 8/23/2011 8/23/2016 Jefferson 1/4/2011 1/4/2016 Lewis 3/18/2011 3/18/2016 Monroe County 8/15/2011 8/15/2016 Niagara 11/10/ /10/2014 Onondaga 12/6/ /6/2017 Ontario 1/28/2010 1/12/2015 Oswego 4/12/2013 4/12/2018 Wyoming 8/28/2008 8/28/

15 Sample of Data Collection Progress Date Title of Event # Counties within Study Area 6/1/1972 New York Tropical Storm Agnes 9 3/1/1973 New York High Winds, Wave Action, Flooding 8 7/1/1974 New York Severe Storms, Flooding 4 10/1/1975 New York Severe Storms, Heavy Rain, Landslides, Flooding 3 3/1/1976 New York Ice Storm, Severe Storms, Flooding 4 7/1/1976 New York Severe Storms, Flooding 2 3/1/1985 New York Flooding 2 3/1/1985 New York Snow Melt, Ice Jams 1 1/1/1996 New York Severe Storms/Flooding 8 11/1/1996 New York Severe Storms/Flooding 1 June & July 1998 New York Severe Storms and Flooding 4 9/1/1998 New York Severe Storms 8 May to Aug 2000 New York Severe Storms 7 July & August 2003 New York Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding 3 May & June 2004 New York Severe Storms and Flooding 17 Aug & Sept 2004 New York Severe Storms and Flooding 6 4/1/2005 New York Severe Storms and Flooding 2 6/1/2006 New York Severe Storms and Flooding 3 10/1/2006 New York Severe Storms and Flooding 3 11/1/2006 New York Severe Storms and Flooding 2 April & May 2011 New York Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight Line Winds 9 8/1/2011 New York Hurricane Irene 2 9/1/2011 New York Remnants of Tropical Storm Lee 2 15

16 Sample of Data Collection Progress Repetitive Loss Properties County Community Number of Losses Total Claims Paid BATAVIA, CITY OF 3 $17,109 GENESEE COUNTY BATAVIA, TOWN OF 2 $18,608 JEFFERSON COUNTY LEWIS LEWIS COUNTY LIVINGSTON COUNTY ANTWERP, TOWN OF 3 $14,649 BROWNVILLE, TOWN OF 2 $264,797 CARTHAGE, VILLAGE OF 3 $11,205 CLAYTON, VILLAGE OF 2 $6,298 LORRAINE, TOWN OF 2 $9,185 WILNA, TOWN OF 5 $31,028 CASTORLAND, VILLAGE OF 2 $20,040 DENMARK, TOWN OF 2 $9,539 GREIG, TOWN OF 2 $24,718 LEYDEN, TOWN OF 2 $4,706 CALEDONIA, TOWN OF 2 $11,220 LIVONIA, TOWN OF 4 $24,911 16

17 Topographic Data Coastal data collected 17

18 Topographic Data continued Other LiDAR data 18

19 Data We Need from You Areas of Concern Areas of recent or planned development Areas of high growth or other significant land changes Areas of historical flooding Other flood risks (high erosion areas, drainage issues ) Mitigation projects Your ideas about Risk MAP products and mitigation projects that may help your community Your ideas about other ways to increase your community s resilience from flooding To explain some of the actions that your community may take to reduce risk, we ll review mitigation grants and planning and participation in the NFIP program 19

20 Data Worksheet Feedback We need comments returned by December 31, 2013 Digital comments can be submitted to: Written comments can be sent to the following: Attention: Kelli Higgins-Roche 20

21 New Detailed Coastal Analysis in the Great Lakes Current FIRMs may be dated due to the age of data & methodologies many date to 1970s Changes in NFIP policies and methodologies have since occurred, creating need for an update Coastal analysis will include: Historical water level changes Detailed assessment and modeling of wave conditions Erosion analysis Detailed modeling of wave runup Coastal hazard mapping based on detailed modeling 21

22 Available Coastal Data For the Coastal Study, the following data is currently available for use: LiDAR NOAA Bathymetric Data USACE Oblique Aerials USACE Shoreline Classification Data communities can submit for use: Coastal Structure data More detailed topographic data Detailed bathymetric data 22

23 Storm Surge Analysis and Stillwater Elevations Stillwater elevations determined from results of surge modeling Storms run with water level that existed during event Extreme value analysis used to determine the 1% coastal stillwater elevations Several scenarios of differing water levels and wave conditions tested for most conservative results Name Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Methodology Maximum water level and associated wave height extracted from the iso-probability curve Maximum wave height and associated water level extracted from the iso-probability curve Combination of intermediate values extracted from the iso-probability curve 1-percent-annual-chance exceedence value of water level, and expected wave height from the conditional probability distribution 1-percent-annual-chance exceedence value of wave height and expected water level from the conditional probability distribution 23

24 IJC Lake Ontario St. Lawrence River Current FEMA regulations require the use of past and present conditions in coastal analysis and mapping Past shifts in water levels are included in coastal analysis and mapping Often storms coinciding with the largest coastal hazards are during winter months Water levels naturally lower Currently in early stages of coastal analysis, closely observing the proposed changes 24

25 Coastal Analysis Process TERRAIN PROCESSING STORM SURGE ANALYSIS STARTING WAVE CONDITION ANALYSIS TRANSECT LAYOUT & FIELD RECONNAISSANCE STORM-INDUCED EROSION OVERLAND WAVE HEIGHT & RUNUP ANALYSIS FLOOD HAZARD ZONE MAPPING 25

26 Erosion in the Great Lakes USACE CSHORE model Applies real physics Near-shore wave processes Cross-shore sediment transport Requires sediment grain size Available data or estimated 26

27 Runup Modeling in the Great Lakes USACE CSHORE model Limit of Wave Runup Storm Still Water Level Barrier Slope Breaker Depth Source: FEMA, 2003 Figure D Wave Runup Sketch 27

28 Wave Runup Mapping How runup is mapped Terrain shows different slope at the shore 28

29 Changing BFEs Base Flood Elevation on FIRM now includes 3 components: 1. Storm surge stillwater elevation (SWEL) includes wave setup 2. Wave height above storm surge (stillwater) elevation 3. Wave runup above storm surge elevation (where present) 29

30 How does this apply to my community? NFIP Compliance Local impact of the coastal study 30

31 National Flood Insurance Program Allows property owners to purchase federally backed flood insurance State and local governments agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances Over 20,300 communities participate in the NFIP nationwide 1,498 communities in NYS participate in the NFIP 31

32 Standard NFIP Building Requirements The lowest enclosed area, including basement must be at or above the Base Flood Elevation plus two feet (residential) Non-residential buildings may be flood proofed in lieu of elevation (freeboard applies) NO development in the regulatory floodway that would raise flood elevations 32

33 Floodway Schematic 1% Annual Chance Flood FLOODWAY FRINGE FLOODWAY SURCHARGE FLOODWAY + FLOODWAY FRINGES = FLOODPLAIN SURCHARGE NOT TO EXCEED 1.0 FOOT to Create Floodway Encroachment within Floodway May Not Increase BFE By Any Amount 33

34 Standard NFIP Building Requirements (No Base Flood Elevation) A Zone Building Requirements Where no Base Flood Elevation: Lowest floor at least 3 above highest adjacent grade If have a BFE then use it Developments over 5 acres or over 50 lots must provide a BFE VE Zone Buildings Requirements Lowest horizontal member must be above BFE Structure must have open foundation, not built on fill Below BFE must be free of obstructions Breakaway walls are permissible 34

35 Community Rating System (CRS) Flood insurance premium rates discounted to reward community actions that reduce flood losses, facilitate accurate insurance ratings, and encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management Class rating system from 1 to 10 Each Class improvement (500 point increments) results in additional 5% discount, up to 45% in SFHAs for Class 1 communities Uniform minimum credits give you points for activities on the state level (state laws) and make achieving a Class 9 relatively easy 18 creditable activities, organized under four categories: Public Information Mapping and Regulations Flood Damage Reduction Flood Preparation 36

36 Hazard Mitigation Planning Risk MAP and Mitigation Planning Refer to the Plan & Keep it Current Coordinated and participative Planning Process Mitigation Planning Cycle Identify hazards that can affect the jurisdiction Local hazard mitigation plans must be updated every five (5) years. Use new Risk MAP information to update local HMP. Flood Hazard Profile Risk Assessment Mitigation Strategy Adopt the plan and implement the mitigation strategy Assess the risks from these hazards Develop strategy to mitigate the risks 37

37 Possible Mitigation Activities Mitigation should be part of overall hazard mitigation plan 2 foot of freeboard for new structures. Cumulative substantial improvement clause. List of publicly owned buildings that have flood risk. Acquisition of flood prone structures. County GIS system. Updated weather tracking equipment. Stream bank stabilization projects Identified sanitary sewer mains vulnerable to erosion from flood Stream bank or shoreline stabilization projects Adopted a wellhead protection ordinance. Vulnerability assessment of water and wastewater infrastructure. Elevate, move and acquire flood damaged structures. Identify vulnerable critical facilities. Implement mitigation measures for repetitive loss properties. Require elevation of new structures and substantially improved structures. Natural stream restoration 38

38 Recommended Higher Standards 2 feet of freeboard Restrictions on hazardous material storage Regulated high risk land uses (e.g. manufactured homes/critical infrastructure) 50 foot Setbacks/ Buffers Conservation/open space area Cumulative Substantial Damage/Substantial Improvement Lower threshold for Substantial Damage Subdivision design triggering flood study Prohibitions SFHA development Manufactured homes Fill Community Identified Flood Areas 39

39 Mitigation Grant Programs and Funding Sources Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Severs Repetitive Flood Claims (SRL) US Army Corps. of Engineers Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) State NYSDEC NYS Office of Community Renewal NYS Office of Emergency Management Local Watershed Conservancy Districts Local taxes Storm water utilities 40

40 Risk Communication Federal/State/Local goals: To reduce risk to life and property, ensure safer, sustainable communities To effectively communicate risk and increase public awareness, leading citizens to make informed decisions regarding their risk Key factors contributing to successful achievement of these goals are: Community engagement and exchange of flood risk information Effective collaboration through partnerships Strategic communications plan development Local understanding and implementation of mitigation action and strategies 41

41 Next Steps Communities will provide additional data Dewberry will: Finalize Discovery Map and Discovery Report and distribute to communities and other stakeholders Update FEMA systems (Coordinated Needs Management Strategy, National Digital Elevation/Orthophotography Programs, etc.) 42

42 Schedule Today In person Meetings Data worksheets Due December 31, 2013 Final Deliverables March

43 Breakout Sessions We want to hear from you! What are areas of recent or planned development or high growth or other significant land changes? What other flood risks are there? What other mitigation plans and projects are there? What are your community s concerns? How can we (both FEMA and you) communicate risk within your community and increase resilience from floods? 44

44 Resources Risk Assessment, Mapping and Planning Partners: Draft Discovery report, PowerPoint presentation, and maps will be posted here FEMA: Floodsmart, the official site of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): NFIP Reform: National Committee on Levee Safety: 45

45 Contact Information FEMA: Paul Weberg: Dewberry: Jeff Gangai: Robyn Boyd: Rachael Herman: Andrew Martin: NYSDEC: William Nechamen: Kelli Higgins-Roche: 46

46 Questions? 47