Cooperating Technical Partners Information Exchange

Flood Mapping for the Nation:How FEMA Tracks Progress

and Validity Using CNMS

Audio and Web Settings

Open and hide your control panel using the orange arrow button at top left corner

• Choose “Computer audio” to use computer speakers or headphones

• Choose “Phone call” to dial in using the information provided

Submit questions & comments via the Questions panel

Participation

Webinar Logistics

• All lines will be automatically be muted.

• Use the Question window in the control panel to submit your question or comment to the Flood Science Center Organizer.

• Select questions will be read to the presenter and answered.

• Questions not asked during the webinar will be answered and posted to the CTP Webinar page.

• Certified Floodplain Managers are eligible for 1 Continuing Education Credit for participating in this webinar.

• You must have registered individually and indicated you are a CFM at time of registration.

• Eligibility for CEC is dependent on your participation in poll questions and time spent viewing the webinar, as determined by the webinar software.

• Attending this webinar in a group setting or only viewing the recording is NOT eligible for CEC.

Continuing Education Credits

• To suggest future CTP webinar topics, please contact Alan Lulloff at alan@floods.org or type a suggested topic into the Questions panel today

• ASFPM CFM CECs will be automatically applied

• Certificates of Attendance will be emailed, please contact cfm@floods.org with any certificate issues

• Follow-up email with link to slides and recording will be sent next week

Thank You for Joining Us!

Additional Logistics

Poll for Future CTP Webinar Topic

Of the following topics, which one would you like to see as a future CTP

Information Exchange webinar?

Monday, June 18, 2018

3:00 - 5:00 pm: National Policy Issues Cooperating Technical Partners

7:00 – 9:00 pm: Off-site Cooperating Technical Partners Social

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Noon - 1:30 pm: Keynote Luncheon (Incl. with FULL Registration [$45 a la carte])

• CTP Recognition Awards presented by Brock Long (or his representative)

1:45 - 3:15 pm: Concurrent Session B7: CTP Initiatives

• Performance Measures for the CTP Program: How to Make Them Work for Your Mapping Project

• Colorado Hazard Mapping Program (CHAMP) - Lessons Learned

• Missouri PIR Counties with Risk MAP Infusion - Bootheel of Missouri

CTP Events at 2018 ASFPM Conference in Phoenix

Thursday, June 21, 2018

2:30 - 5:00 pm: FEMA CTP Best Practices from the Field

• A Special Presentation from the 1st Annual CTP Recognition Program: San Antonio River Authority (SARA), Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) and the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW)

4:00 - 5:30 pm: Concurrent Session J7: Mapping Toolbox Innovations

• FEMA’s CNMS Database - More Than Metrics: Hurricane Harvey Disaster Response

• Texas Water Development Board Cooperating Technical Partner -Statewide Prioritization Tool

• Leveraging Coastal Data: The Development of a Coastal MultiFrequency Geospatial Data Catalog

CTP Events at 2018 ASFPM Conference in Phoenix

ASFPM Mapping and Engineering Standards Committee

Cooperating Technical Partners Sub-committee

Co-chairs:

• Thuy Patton, PE, CFMColorado Water Conservation Board

• Carey JohnsonKentucky Department for Environmental Protection

Goals:

• Identify common concerns

• Provide opportunities for information exchange

• Identify training needs

• Promote and document the value of CTPs

Agenda

Introduction - Alan Lulloff

Overview of CNMS - Erik Danielson & Bradford Hartley

1) Riverine 2) Coastal 3) FEMA Regional Service Centers

CTP CNMS Coordination - Matthew Armstrong & Carey Johnson

Using CNMS for Providing Engineering Models Access - Mary Presnail

Questions/Discussion

ASFPM Report: Flood Mapping for the Nation (2013)

http://no.floods.org/MappingTheNation

• Estimated the total cost to provide floodplain mapping for all communities (Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012)

• The Nation has invested $4.3 billion in flood mapping to date

Flood hazard mapping developed for 1.1 m stream miles

Guides development that saves over $1 billion/year in flood damages

• Flood Mapping for the Nation

National Hydrography Dataset: 3.5 million stream miles

Mapping Cost: $4.5 billion to $7.5 billion to complete

Cost to then maintain accurate and up-to-date flood maps ranges from $116 million to $275 million annually

Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) Overview

• Inventory of FEMA’s riverine and coastal mapped special flood hazard areas.

• Comprehensive approach to managing mapping needs.

• Used to organize, store and analyze flood hazard mapping needs as well as document study reaches that meet FEMA’s validity standards.

• A Geospatial Database that tracks:

New, Validated or Updated Engineering (NVUE)

Unverified study reaches (need of restudy)

Flood mapping requests

CNMS Components

CNMS Inventory (Riverine and Coastal)

• flooding source centerlines(streamlines) and coast lines that contain FEMA’s inventory of flood hazard studies.

CNMS Requests

• polygons or points that identify areas where study or mapping updates are desired.

CNMS Technical Reference

CNMS Data Development

• Workflow and process, data input/output

CNMS Data Entry Process

• Feature class/attribute descriptions, study phase updates

Appendices

• Validation assessments, data dictionary, QC tool

CNMS Geodatabase Schema

ArcGIS File Geodatabase

• Data model diagram and data dictionary are included in the CNMS Technical Reference

• Attributes support FEMA program & project planning

• Captures effective and ongoing study attributes

• Updated throughout Flood Study Process

• Maintained by each FEMA Region

CNMS Data Viewer

• Maintained by CDS – updated quarterly

• Community engagement tool; CNMS requests capture

https://msc.fema.gov/cnms/

What is NVUE?New, Valid, Or Updated Engineering

• Engineering studies that adequately identify the level of flood

risk identified on a community’s flood insurance rate map are

classified in CNMS as “VALID – NVUE COMPLIANT”

• Studies found to be deficient are classified as “UNVERIFIED”

• Valid studies require re-assessment by FEMA every five years

Validation assessment procedures for Detailed, Approximate and

Coastal Studies

Changes in topography, hydrology & land development are

evaluated

Unverified studies can only become Valid through a restudy

Calculating the NVUE Metric

NVUE AttainedValid or Being Studied Stream Miles

past Preliminary issuance

CNMSDatabase

Total NVUE Calculation

+

Regional Purchased Milesprior to Preliminary issuance

NVUE Initiated

P4 Database

FEMA’s Project Planning and Purchasing Portal

Why is NVUE Important?

Measure of FEMA’s Program, reported to Congress• FEMA Regions submit CNMS Database (quarterly rollup)

• Report purchased miles in P4 annually, maintained quarterly

FEMA target of 80% NVUE by FY23

Tier Inventory

• New classification in CNMS (2017)

• TIER field in CNMS describes maturity scale of flood hazard data products

TIER 0Known to be flood prone (i.e. draining greater than 1 square mile) but not yet identified as SFHA on a regulatory FIRM.

TIER 1 SFHA is not available in digital format.

TIER 2 SFHA is available as a digital product, but not known to be model-backed.

TIER 3 Is available as a digital product, model-backed and consistent with high quality elevation data (USGS Quality Level (QL) 2 equivalence or better). (This tier should serve as meeting all current Risk MAP technical requirements).

TIER 4 SFHA is available as a digital product, and including enhanced analyses such as future land use, or future climate-informed analyses.

Tier Inventory

FEMA Target of 100% digital & modernized (TIER 3) by 2023

Poll Question

Have you used a CNMS database or FEMA’s CNMS web viewer in the past?

Riverine Inventory

Mid 2014-Current (Assessments)

Early 2009 (Phase 1)

Late 2009 (Phase 2)

Early 2010 (Phase 2.5)

Late 2010 (Phase 3)

2012 (Project Maintenance)

S_Studies_Ln Feature Class

Riverine Inventory

Background Data

• Reach ID

• MIP Case#

• FIPS/CID/ HUC

• Flood Zone

• Stream Name

• Study Type

• Miles

FEMA Tracking

• Source of Line

• Status Type

• Tiers

• Risk Products

• BLE

• FBS

Effective Study

• Date of Model

• Hydro Model

• Hydra Model

Assessment Checks

• Critical Checks

• Secondary Checks

• Check Totals

Being Studied

• MIP Case#

• Flood Zone

• Study Type

• Hydro Model

• Hydra Model

Assessment Check Info

• Comments

• Source

• URL

Critical Checks Secondary Checks

C1 - Major change in gage record S1 - Use of rural regression equations in urban areas

C2 - Significant change in discharge S2 - Repetitive loss outside the SFHA

C3 - Model methodology not appropriate S3 - 50% Increase in impervious Area

C4 - Major flood control structures added or removed

S4 - >1 and <5 new/removed hydraulic structures

C5 - Channel outside SFHA S5 - Channel/shoreline improvements

C6 - 5 new or removed hydraulic structures S6 - Availability of better topographic data

C7 - Stream channel area change (scour) S7 - Land use change since effective

S8 - Significant storm & high water mark data

S9 - Release of updated regression equations

1 Critical and/or 4 Secondary Fails = Unverified

Riverine Detailed Checks

Check C1 data inputs:• New & existing USGS gages

Check performed if:• Gage with at least 1 year of record after

study date and drainage area 50-150% within study area

• Otherwise, C1 automatically passes

A major event in gage

record since study date

will fail the check

• “Major” defined as > 1%

annual chance flood recorded

after study date or flood record

Riverine Detailed Check (C1)

Riverine Detailed Check (C6S4)

Check C6S4 data inputs:

• Recent ortho, effective profile(s), DFIRM database, and LOMRs

Check is a direct comparison of structures between profile and recent ortho

• C6 fails if 5 or more new or removed structures

• S4 fails if 4 or less new or removed structures

Special considerations:

• Effective LOMRs need to be supplemented to reflect current conditions

• Check for mention of bridges that were intentionally not modeled/omitted from profile.

• Document name and location of new/removed structure

Approximate Checks

A1 - Availability of better topographic data

A2 - Newer regression equations with significant change outside of standard deviation

A3 - Land use change since effective date

A4 - Study model backed

A5 (Optional) - First Order Approximate (FOA) comparison

Riverine Approximate Checks

1 Check Fails = Unverifiedor

1 Check Fails + Pass (A5) = Valid1 Check Fails + Fail (A5) = Unverified

Riverine Approximate Check (A2)

Check A2 data inputs: Used regression equations

Any new regression equations

StreamStats / ArcHydro

Check performed if:

• Newer regression equations exist and compare current regression equations to effective looking at Q100 (discharge)

Check fails if the Q100 falls outside of 1 standard error

User Defined Critical Elements User Defined Secondary Elements

EC1 - Community based flood studies performed

ES1 - LOMA count changes in the SFHA

EC2 - ES2 - Building count changes in the floodplain

EC3 - ES3 - Is the hydraulic model 3.5 years or older

EC4 - ES4 -

Riverine User Defined Elements

CNMS can accommodate custom assessment checks unique to different geographies:

North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP)

Coastal Inventory

Mid 2015 (Coastal Kick-off)

Late 2016 (Coastal Finalized)

Early 2017 (Coastal Maintenance)

Late 2017 (Assessments)

S_Coastal_Ln Feature Class

Coastal Inventory

Background Data

• Creach ID

• MIP Case #

• FIPS/CID/ HUC

• Study Name

• Study Type

• Miles

FEMA Tracking

• Source of Line

• Status Type

• Tiers

• Risk Products

• FBS

• Populated Coast

Effective Study

• Date of Modeling

• Surge Model

• Setup Meth.

• Runup Model

• Erosion Meth.

• Overland Model

• Wave Model

Assessment Checks

• Critical Checks

• Secondary Checks

• Check Totals

Being Studied

• MIP Case #

• Study Type

• Surge Model

• Setup Meth.

• Runup Model

• Erosion Meth.

• Overland Model

• Wave Model

Assessment Check Info

• Comments

• Source

• URL

Critical Checks Secondary Checks

C1 - Storm events SWL exceeds the 1% SWEL S1 - Starting wave conditions no longer appropriate

C2 - Statistically significant storm intensity data

S2 - Bathy/topo meet FEMA Standards

C3 -Changes in ice coverage (Great Lakes Only)

S3 - Significant changes to land use or vegetation

C4 - Effective models inaccurate S4 - Repetitive loss properties outside of coastal SFHA

C5 - Coastal/mapping modeling changes or improvements from effective study

S5 - Patterns of LOMRs indicated from coastal SFHA

C6 - Shoreline erosion S6 - High water marks collected since effective study

C7 -Existing coastal structures adequate in providing flood protection

1 Critical and/or 3 Secondary Fails= Unverified

Coastal Checks

FEMA Regional Service Centers (RSC)

FEMA Regional Service Centers (RSC)

FEMA Regional Service Centers (RSC)

Vision

RiskMAP will deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action that

reduces risk to life and property

CNMS supports FEMA’s Program Planning

• Awareness of ongoing studies

• Identify mapping needs

• What streams are expiring (valid)

Kentucky Floodplain Management Program

• Kentucky Division of Water has statutory & regulatory authority over all development (dams, levees, fill, structures, etc.) in SHFA

• 7 FP management staff; 5 dam safety staff; 3 CTP staff

• all collaborate on water resources-related activities

• KDOW became a CTP in 1999; active CTP in 2005

• Since 2005, all SFHAs up to the 1 mi2 watershed have been mapped or remapped with model-backed data

• KDOW has developed a web resource to allow for “point and click” 1% annual chance flood elevations and model download capabilities in Zone A SFHAs at: http://watermaps.ky.gov/riskportal

• KDOW leads USACE Silver Jackets activity in KY and participates in state ASFPM chapter: Kentucky Association of Mitigation Managers

Kentucky CTP CNMS Coordination

Local Ownership

• Data collection

• Project updates

• Geometry source

Kentucky CTP CNMS Coordination

Key Benefits

• Mapping Activity Statements/funding requests

• Enhanced Deliverables

• Possible Flood Risk Portal incorporation

Kentucky CTP CNMS Coordination

Database additions

5-year Assessments

• Efficiencies

• Fewer validity surprises

Kentucky CTP CNMS Coordination

Take-aways (FEMA and CTP benefit)

• Improved accuracy

• More detail

• Enhanced deliverables

• Mapping Activity Statements and funding requests

KentuckyCTP USGS NHD Coordination

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Stewardship

• Active management/Updates

Stream configuration linework

Historic features

Topographic updates (LiDAR)

Minnesota Floodplain Management Program

• Assist communities with regulating floodplain development

• Floodplain mapping, modeling and technical assistance

• Flood insurance information

• Floodplain training and education

• Review LOMRs for State regulations compliance

• Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

MinnesotaUsing CNMS

• To determine where models should be updated

• For information on the current effective data

• For the foundation to the model download site

• For cost estimation

MinnesotaUsing CNMS

• MnDNR is a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP)

• FEMA encourages MnDNR to leverage local data

Linking Engineering Modelsto CNMS

GOOD = Get Out Our Data

Linking Engineering Modelsto CNMS

Updating CNMS to match Engineering Model extents

Model Inventory Tracking

Using CNMS as foundation for Engineering Model access

CNMS and Engineering Models

• Work with the Regional Support Center (RSC V) on a county-wide basis when doing CNMS updates.

• Keep track of any changes to send to the RSC

• Future inventory HEC2 models, LOMRs, and no-Rise models.

Poll Question

Which CTP demonstrated their “GOOD” project using CNMS data

to build a public web viewer to download floodplain models?

Regional CTP Coordination

• Transparency

Where assessment work is ongoing and opportunity to review

• Contribution to CNMS Guidelines & Specifications

• RSC notification on new and/or revised guidance

• Database distribution

Entities that Provide Access to Download Engineering Models

• Delaware

• Indiana

• Kentucky

• Maryland

• Minnesota

• North Carolina

• Wisconsin

• Harris County Flood Control District

• Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District

• San Antonio River Authority

• FEMA Flood Risk Study Engineering Library (FRiSEL)

Please contact Alan Lulloff at alan@floods.org if you are a state,

county, community or regional entity that provides online access to

download hydraulic engineering models and are not on this list.

Entities that Provide Access to Download Engineering Models

CTP Information Exchange Webinar on February 17, 2016

• Accessing Flood Study Engineering Models

Maryland

San Antonio River Authority

Find the slides, recording and additional materials on the CTP Information Exchange website at:

https://www.floodsciencecenter.org/event/ctp-webinar-accessing-flood-study-engineering-models/

Questions&

Discussion

Alan Lulloff (ASFPM) alan@floods.org

Erik Danielson (Compass) erik.danielson@aecom.com

Bradford Hartley Jr. (STARR II) bradford.hartleyjr@stantec.com

Carey Johnson (KY DNR) carey.johnson@ky.gov

Matthew Armstrong (Stantec) matthew.armstrong@stantec.com

Mary Presnail (MN DNR) mary.presnail@state.mn.us

Poll Question

Please rate this webinar.

CTP Events at 2018 ASFPM Conference in Phoenix

Monday, June 18, 2018

3:00 - 5:00 pm: National Policy Issues Cooperating Technical Partners

7:00 – 9:00 pm: Off-site Cooperating Technical Partners Social

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Noon - 1:30 pm: Keynote Luncheon - CTP Recognition Awards

1:45 - 3:15 pm: Concurrent Session B7: CTP Initiatives

Thursday, June 21, 2018

2:30 - 5:00 pm: FEMA CTP Best Practices from the Field

4:00 - 5:30 pm: Concurrent Session J7: Mapping Toolbox Innovations

• Certified Floodplain Managers are eligible for 1 Continuing Education Credit for participating in this webinar.

• You must have registered individually and indicated you are a CFM at time of registration.

• Eligibility for CEC is dependent on your participation in poll questions and time spent viewing the webinar, as determined by the webinar software.

• Attending this webinar in a group setting or only viewing the recording is NOT eligible for CEC.

Continuing Education Credits

• To suggest future CTP webinar topics, please contact Alan Lulloff at alan@floods.org or type a suggested topic into the Questions panel today

• ASFPM CFM CECs will be automatically applied

• Certificates of Attendance will be emailed, please contact cfm@floods.org with any certificate issues

• Follow-up email with link to slides and recording will be sent next week

Thank You for Joining Us!

Closing Comments