Friday, September 30, 2011 Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) 2011 Ohio GIS Statewide Conference Tim Beck, CFM – ODNR James Laine, GISP, CFM.

Slides:



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

Hydrology & Hydraulics for Bridge Design
Flood Map Modernization in North Dakota North Dakota State Water Commission FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION.
Jon Keeling, PE, CFM Carey Johnson, CFM ASFPM 2012 Conference May 22, 2012 The Mission of Dam Safety Hazard Mitigation – Kentucky’s Experience.
May 22, 2012 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Flood Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction Plan ASFPM 2012 Annual Conference Timothy J. Trautman, P.E., CFM Flood Mitigation.
Risk MAP Discovery Matanuska-Susitna Borough Information Exchange Sessions March 2013.
FEMA’s Flood Risk Review Meeting: Building Confidence in Risk MAP Products 2012 ASFPM National Conference San Antonio, Texas May 24, :00 pm.
Scoping the North Carolina Cooperating Technical State Project Ed Curtis, P.E., CFM, North Carolina Division of Emergency Management Jerry Sparks, P.E.,
Update on Hazus AAL Study and Data
Risk MAP and Discovery FEMA Region [#], [WATERSHED NAME] Watershed Discovery Meetings [DATE]
Flood Risk Mapping Project Identifying the Risk Editorial Board Meeting [COMMUNITY NAME] Flood Risk Mapping Project.
In coordination with FEMA Scoping Meeting Lake County, California February 19, 2010.
Floodplain Boundary Standard A Coastal Perspective May 23, 2012 Mark Zito, GISP, CFM CDM Smith Alex Sirotek, CFM CDM Smith RSC 1 Lead.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Flood Mitigation Section South Carolina Map Modernization Initiative Update Pee Dee GIS Users Group Meeting.
Approximate Floodplain Mapping - Procedures and Approaches to Data Challenges Troy Thielen, CFM Brett Addams, CFM May 18, 2010.
Floodplain Mapping using HEC-RAS and ArcView GIS Eric Tate Francisco Olivera David Maidment
Cassandra Rutherford Master of Science Candidate Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering Identifying Bridge Scour Susceptibility:
Geographic Information Systems : Data Types, Sources and the ArcView Program.
Idaho Risk MAP Activities Ryan McDaniel, CFM Cooperating Technical Partners Coordinator Idaho Department of Water Resources.
The NHD and the Future of Stream Mapping in West Virginia Jackie Strager Natural Resource Analysis Center Evan Fedorko Kevin Kuhn Kurt.
David Knipe Engineering Section Manager Automated Zone A Floodplain Mapping.
Flood Risk Review Meeting: [Watershed Name] [LOCATION] [DATE]
Changes to FEMA Mapping John Grace, CFM Coastal Engineer - FEMA Region 1 - Boston March 14, 2014 – The Soil and Water Conservation Society – Winter Conference.
The NHD and the Future of Stream Mapping in West Virginia Evan Fedorko West Virginia GIS Technical Center Jackie Strager Natural Resource.
Implementing Automated Processes to Improve Workflow May 19, 2011 Mark Zito, GISP, CFM GIS Specialist CDM.
FLOOD STUDY Oswego County, NY FEMA REGION II February 7, 2011.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Alabama Water Science Center StreamStats: By Kernell Ries and J.
Doug Bellomo April 6, NFDA Retreat & Conference “Risk MAP--Foundation, Transition, Integration” Risk MAP: An Update to NFDA.
Flood Map Modernization Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization NOAA Height Mod Conference 12/1/06 Dave Jula, Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Mat Mampara, PE, CFM – Dewberry Victor Hom, National Weather Service Stuart Geiger, CFM, Dewberry New Guidelines for the Production of NWS AHPS Flood Inundation.
North Carolina White Oak River Basin Plan December 19, 2000.
Department of Water Resources California Levee Database (CLD) An ongoing Initiative to Collect and Catalog Data for California’s Levees and Flood Control.
Creating Local Resolution NHD: Similarities and Differences in Three State Projects Susan Phelps, CFM, GISP March 29, 2012.
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center COASTAL OUTREACH ADVISORY TEAM Kick-off Meeting November 19, 2010 FEMA Region III Coastal Mapping Project.
Overview of Flood Program April Doug Bellomo, Director Risk Analyses Division Mitigation Directorate, FEMA.
Indiana National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Improvement and Application Workshop NHD Local-Resolution Development.
Risk MAP and Discovery FEMA Region [#], [WATERSHED NAME] Watershed Information Exchange Sessions [DATES]
Mid-Course Adjustment Overview. Flood Map Modernization The Question “The committee understands that the 5-year, $1,000,000,000 program will not update.
Behind The Curtain: GIS and Floodplain Mapping Adam Daily, Bradford Hartley, & Adam Pooler GIS Analysts Stantec Consulting Services Inc Ohio GIS.
North Carolina Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan Final Scoping Meetings January 30 and 31, 2001.
Assessment of Economic Benefits of the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Hydrologic and Hydraulic Case Studies Adapted from a Presentation to NRC.
Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project Draft Methodology Report: For the Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment.
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.
1 MIP Sequencing Tool Training Introduction to the Sequencing Tool.
The NHD and the Future of Stream Mapping in West Virginia Evan Fedorko West Virginia GIS Technical Center Jackie Strager (NRAC)
In coordination with FEMA Kickoff Meeting Ventura County, CA April 29, 2010.
FIT ProposalApril 29, 2015 Levee & Dike Inventory Data Development and Creation of Statewide Geodatabase Photo: Outlier Solutions Inc. and Lighthawk Steve.
Automated Solutions to Water Resource Evaluations Katherine Skalak, EIT ODNR Floodplain Management Program 2012 Ohio GIS Conference September ,
Map Mod Indiana Status Next counties up Fountain Parke Randolph Martin Ripley.
Flood Map Modernization Mitigation Division, FEMA.
FLOOD STUDY Burlington County, NJ FEMA REGION II November 29, 2010.
Rebuilding the System Reducing the Risk California Water Plan Plenary Session October 22-23, 2007.
1 Community Hydrology in a Watershed World The Fulton County Experience Amy Bergbreiter, PE, CFM Monica Urisko, PE, CFM.
Community Engagement to Advance Mitigation Action.
Risk MAP Discovery Malheur & Payette Counties Information Exchange Sessions July 2015.
David Knipe Engineering Section Manager 8. Future Applications of NHD.
BUILDING STRONG ® 1 Risk Management Center Silver Jackets Program Overview Jennifer Dunn USACE, Institute for Water Resources Silver Jackets Program Manager.
Using the NHDPlus for drainage area delineation and site matching Kirsten Cassingham, NC Water Science Center Silvia Terziotti, NC Water Science Center.
Oregon Statewide Flood Hazard Framework Geodatabase and Web Library, version 1.0 Seamless statewide GIS floodplain element that conforms to standards adopted.
West Virginia GIS Conference WV Flood Risk Mapping Status and Needs Lee Brancheau, GISP FEMA Region III, Risk Analysis Branch May 5, 2016 West Virginia.
Adopting National Standards for Tidal and Geodetic Datums
North Carolina Lumber River Basin Plan
Risk Assessment Methodology
FEMA and Geospatial Coordination in West Virginia
Risk MAP & the Little River Basin
Hydrology.
Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning
MANAGING FLOOD RISK Protecting People and Property in the Floodplain
Automated Zone A Floodplain Mapping
Presentation transcript:

Friday, September 30, 2011 Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) 2011 Ohio GIS Statewide Conference Tim Beck, CFM – ODNR James Laine, GISP, CFM - Stantec

CNMS Background and Overview Data Model Checks Ohio CNMS Stats Look at data in your community Agenda

What is CNMS? Geospatial inventory of FEMA studies and mapping needs “Living” Database –Continuous new input and assessment –“Valid” Streams reassessed every five years Tracks needs, requests, and study status Risk MAP – Mapping Assessment and Planning Critical component for multi-year planning National Level Reporting Tool –NVUE (80% by FY14)

CNMS Objectives and Overview CNMS allows for: –Nationally consistent practice –Means for recording the voice of communities –Complete visibility –Record of the inventory –Status of the inventory –Means for measuring progress (metric) toward an operational goal – accountability –Means for tracking current activities –Means for projecting progress and planning for success

CNMS Data Model

CNMS Inventory (S_Studies_Ln) Flooding source Centerlines –FEMA’s FIRM inventory (both mapped and unmapped hydrologic features) Store pertinent attributes and features associated with each study or unmapped feature. These lines enable NVUE tracking.

CNMS Data Structure Key fields include: –Reach ID –FIPS –Validation Status –Flood Zone and Study Type –HUC8 Key –Status Type –Miles Leverage both Attribute & Spatial queries –Watershed based

CNMS Request Records (S_Requests_Ar and _Pt) Either flood data or cartographic requests In most instances, determined by the lack of an existing floodplain model Enables community, state, and other POCs to document requests Are reviewed and determined to either warrant action, or are deferred Considered during prioritization

Simplified CNMS Lifecycle Diagram Input CNMS Phase 3 Mapped Inventory NO Restudy makes stream Valid Stream Studied YES Input Unmapped Requests

CNMS Phase 3 Phases 1 and 2 built the inventory First Nationwide CNMS Validation effort –First attempt of assessment through 17 elements Further builds and refines FEMA study inventory Conducts initial validation assessment for most detailed studies Essential to long-term success of CNMS –Lays framework for CNMS use for years ahead

CNMS Phase 3 “Before” HUC Status"Before" Miles NVUE Compliant182.5 Being Studied- To Be Studied- Unknown1069 Total inventory NVUE14.6%

CNMS Phase 3 “After” HUC Status"After" Miles NVUE Compliant707.2 Being Studied42 To Be Studied215 Unknown142 Total inventory NVUE63.9% "Future" NVUE67.7%

Validation Elements Study determined Unverified if: –One critical element fails, or –Four or more secondary elements fail Elements assess change in Engineering study data, for instance: –Change in gage record –New or removed dam, reservoir, or levee –Change in Land use and land cover –High Water Marks –New or removed hydraulic structures (bridges, culverts) –Channel reconfiguration or improvements –New regression equations –Availability of new topo

Critical Elements Elements 1.Major Change in Gage Record 2.Updated and Effective Discharges Differ Significantly 3.Inappropriate Model Methodology 4.Addition / removal of a Major Flood Control Structure 5.Channel reconfiguration outside SFHA 6.5 or More New or Removed Hydraulic Structures 7.Significant channel fill or scour If one or more elements are true then Flood Hazard Information is invalid ---Yes = FAIL No = PASS

Secondary Elements Elements 1.Use of rural regression equations in urban area 2.Repetitive Losses outside SFHA 3.Increase of 50% or more in impervious area 4.4 or less new or removed hydraulic structures 5.Channel Improvements / Shoreline Changes 6.Availability of better topographic / bathymetry 7.Changes in vegetation or landuse 8.Failure to identify Primary Frontal Dune 9.Significant storms with High Water Marks 10.New Regression Equations If four or more elements are true then Flood Hazard Information is invalid

GIS Role – Data Used Data sources –Gage Data: USGS or USACE gage data, PeakFQ WIN –FEMA, USGS – High Watermark Data –National Bridge Inventory – Scour –National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD 1992 & 2001) –National Urban Change Indicator (NUCI) –OSIP Imagery, –local and state knowledge

GIS Role – Workflow STARR Workflow Automate Processes Data Processing Tools –Standardize, streamline and simplify procedures –Decrease the potential for error –Standardize data formatting and storage Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Pre-Processing Rasters –Grouping Landuse/ Impervious types

S1: Tool Use of rural regression equations in urbanized areas: Check the FIS for analysis type: –If regression was not used to develop discharges, elements becomes NO. S1 Tool –Determines % urban area in sub- watershed. –Checks against FEMA tolerance (15%) –Checks against regression type used. –If >15%(FEMA tolerance) and regression used…YES –Joined back to S_Studies_Ln (Y/N) If regression was used and watershed has changed from rural to urban, this becomes YES. Simple tool – could process Statewide

S3: Tool Increase in impervious area in the basin of more than 50% (from 10% to 15%)?  Analysis of land use data, if urban area increases by 50% or more since Study Date, this element “Fails”.  Tool  Automated Toolbox process  Runs comparisons against multiple raster datasets to FEMA specified tolerances  Determines if there’s a significant change HUC  Compares the % change to tolerance (50%)can’t be greater than 50%,  Calc’s results and joins to STARR DB

S7: Tool 30% change in land use in watershed since Study Date causes this element to “Fail”.  Tool  Automated Toolbox process  Runs comparisons against multiple raster datasets to FEMA specified tolerances  Determines if there’s a significant change HUC  Compares the % change to tolerance (30%)can’t be greater than 30%, did 3 or more land use types change significantly  Calc’s results and joins to STARR DB

C4: Tool Addition/removal of a major flood control structure If 30% of the drainage area for a study is impacted by a new/removed dam then causes the element to “Fail”. Tool: –Compares date of Dam with Flood Study Date and assesses drainage area for each study. –Series of Toolbox tools.

C7:Significant channel fill or scour Inputs: NBI, Imagery, local and state knowledge National Bridge Inventory dataset Item 113 can show scour; also FIS text may show fill or scour. If fill or scour is suspected, community outreach may be necessary to confirm.

S2: Repetitive losses outside the SFHA FEMA to provide repetitive loss data; data to be used as-is. If repetitive loss point plots outside of SFHA, then element “Fails”. Repetitive losses outside SFHA indicate that SFHA may be inaccurate. Repetitive losses far outside SFHA may not count against element; flooding may be caused by local drainage issues or unmapped streams.

C5: Channel Reconfiguration outside SFHA Inputs are DFIRM SFHA, current imagery. Direct comparison of stream on imagery to SFHA. Stream outside SFHA warrants a YES, and “Fails”. Minor deviations can be classified as “mapping errors”, and would not necessarily cause element to fail.

C6/ S4: New or removed hydraulic structures Direct comparison between profile and roads shown on imagery/transportation lines. C6 Check - Element “Fails” if 5 or more new or removed structures. S4 Check – Element “Fails” if there are 1 to 4 new or removed structures. Check FIS for mention of bridges that were intentionally not modeled/omitted from profile. Document name and location of new/removed structure

S6: Better topo available Input updated topo info from National Topo Inventory, RSC, Federal, State, and local governments and agencies. “Better” topo defined as having better resolution and being newer than topo used for study. Element Fails if better topo available. Redelineated streams incorporating new topo pass this check, but check for newer topo or better resolution since date of redelineation.

Benefits of CNMS Allows spatial use of the information. –Queries, Maps and etc. –Now have Relational information. Sequencing – Know what check it failed portion of the check it failed –Qualifying Studies: Valid/Unverified –Quantifying Studies: # miles Used to Prioritize Watersheds for Risk Map. –Trifecta of Data Risk Need Topo

Ohio CNMS

How do I access the data and get my needs recorded? Short Term - Housed at Regional Support Center in Chicago –Contact RSC Bradford Hartley –Contact ODNR Matt Lesher Long Term – National Portal development underway

Breakout Session Look at the data in your community Questions?