1. Mat Mampara, PE, CFM – Dewberry Victor Hom, National Weather Service Stuart Geiger, CFM, Dewberry New Guidelines for the Production of NWS AHPS Flood Inundation Map Libraries ASFPM 2012, San Antonio, TX Session A8: Flood Forecasting and Inundation

2. History of the FIM Guidelines Overview of the 2011 Revision Major Changes Future Needs Agenda

3. Initially developed by NOAA Borrowed standards from DFIRMs Second version adopted input from the USGS QA/QC Plan followed in 2009 Guidelines to Date

4. 2011 Revision Susquehanna River Basin Commission / ERH / NWS HQ identified a number of necessary revisions Account for bridges in mapping Provide guidance for mapping levee risk areas General reorganization

5. Kicked off October 2010 Document Assessment (completed December 2010) Dewberry NWS HQ Coastal Services Center USGS AHPS Core Goals Team Project Schedule

6. Victor Hom, NWS HQ, Lead Seann Reed – OHD Laurie Hogan – Eastern Regional HSD Wendy Pearson – Central Regional HSD Core Goals Team The Core Goal team is to provide advice, develop requirements, and help identify resources for: promoting Regional Flood Mapping Efforts promoting Training Opportunities developing Program Policy and Maximize Strategic Planning identifying Web Evolution and Stakeholder Service Needs developing Maintenance and Servicing Requirements/Plans Kris Lander – Central Regional HSD Jay Breidenbach – WFO Boise, ID Frank Bell – West Gulf RFC Doug Marcy – NOAA CSC

7. Revision Review (completed February 2011) Document Revision Process – Concluded July 2011 42 Revisions Final Draft – Delivered September 2011 Project Schedule

8. 1.Reorganization of Document Based on Phases of FIM Process Integrate QA/QC Plan Scope of Revision NWS, Partners NWS, Partners, NWS, Partners, and/or Contractor NWS, Partners, and/or Contractor AHPS Contractor NWS & Partners AHPS Contractor NWS, Partners, and/or Contractor Phase I PLANNING Phase II ENGINEERING & ANALYSIS Phase III IMPLEMENT- ATION NWS & Partners Phase IV OPERATION & MAINTENANCE NWS QA QCQC

9. 2. Phase 1 – Planning 2.1. Pre ‐ Project Planning Review Flood History and Flood Categories Review Available Data 2.2. Review Project Checklist 2.3. Project Teams and Expectations Reorganization – Planning Section 2.4. Define Study Area Reach Length Water Surface Profile Intervals 2.5.Develop Statement of Work 2.6.Review Best Practices Management Technical Mapping Process

10. 1.Reorganization of Document 2.Hydrology and Hydraulics Updates Disconnected Floodplains Adopting Existing Models for FIM Mapping Procedures for Mapping Near Tributaries Scope of Revision Disconnected Flood Area

11. 1.Reorganization of Document 2.Hydrology and Hydraulics Updates 3.Geospatial Data Clarification/Updates ESRI Terrain Revised DEM Standards Base map Data Deliverable Formats and Attributes Scope of Revision

12. 1.Reorganization of Document 2.Hydrology and Hydraulics Updates 3.Geospatial Data Clarification/Updates 4.Program/Procedural Updates Qualifications for Mapping Partners Moving to Digital Only Review Keeping Abreast of Changes – FEMA’s Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) 7 Critical Elements 10 Secondary Elements Scope of Revision

13. 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 answer to one or more elements is ‘Yes’ then Flood Hazard Information is ‘Invalid’ CNMS Evaluation Elements 1.Use of rural regression equations in urban area? 2.Repetitive Losses outside SFHA? 3.Increase of 50% or more in impervious area? 4.1-4 new or removed hydraulic structures? 5.Channel Improvements / Shoreline Changes? 6.Availability of better topographic / bathymetry? 7.Changes in vegetation or land-use? 8.Failure to identify Primary Frontal Dune? 9.Significant storms with High Water Marks? 10.New Regression Equations ? If answer to four or more elements is ‘Yes’ then flood Hazard Information is ‘Unverified’ Critical Elements Secondary Elements

14. 1.Reorganization of Document 2.Hydrology and Hydraulics Updates 3.Geospatial Data Clarification/Updates 4.Program/Procedural Updates 5.Bridge Mapping Scope of Revision

15. Objective – Show realistic inundation near bridges and promote good emergency management practices Bridges in Inundation Mapping Not realistic – bridge is not flooded below action stage… Approach is blocked! Bridge is closed to traffic

16. Is the water surface elevation > the bridge deck / high chord? If yes, show the bridge as overtopped for that flood stage. If not, Is either approach to the bridge inundated, preventing an uninterrupted crossing of the structure? If yes, show the bridge as overtopped for that flood stage. If not, Show the bridge as dry. Only as good as the number of mapped stages available! Logic Used in Bridge Removal

17. 1.Reorganization of Document 2.Hydrology and Hydraulics Updates 3.Geospatial Data Clarification/Updates 4.Program/Procedural Updates 5.Bridge Mapping 6.Levee Mapping Scope of Revision

18. Complex situations Left bank, right bank, both? Type of model Contentious policy 27-Senator, 49-Represenative Letter to FEMA End of without-levee mapping Alternatives being evaluated Levee Mapping – Scenarios and Policy

19. Once the appropriate model is chosen, a mapping criteria needs to be employed behind levees. For any water surface that overtops the levee, the area inundated by the highest calculated elevation should be shown as a “Levee Failure Risk Area.” During high flows, once a levee is overtopped and areas behind the levee overfilled, engineering judgment should be used to ensure conveyance above this blocked area is hydraulically consistent between impacted cross sections in the model. Levee Mapping levee failure risk area

20. Finalization of Levee Mapping Conclusion of FEMA efforts Enhancing the AHPS Visualization Platform NWS has already moved to a Google-base, and is increasing mapping efficiency by removing base map requirements Promoting dynamic mapping standards Integration of IWRSS standards for data sharing Working with USGS, USACE, and FEMA Future Efforts

21. 1.Standards for content delivery - geospatial / topologies - attributes provide more value 2.Schema that is open, scalable - OGC-compliant - promotes QA 3.Promote broad sharing across multiple platforms - web services, multiple formats (KML, WMS, WFS, WPS) “database standards drive dissemination” Data Sharing Needs

22. Roadmap Document (February 2009) 22 Aligns multiple agencies with complimentary water- related missions to: Integrate services and service delivery Improve river and flood forecasts Provide new summit-to-sea water resources analyses and forecasts Enable more effective use of resources http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/~cline/IWRSS/IWRSS_ROADMAP_v1.0.pdf Integrated Water Resources Science and Services (IWRSS)

23. Interoperability of key systems and data synchronization Standardized data formats Enhanced geospatial information and visualization Common Operating Picture Coordinated R&D portfolio investments Leverage multi-disciplinary skills to formulate effective solutions Federal Tool Box – one stop shopping for federal water data and information Key Principles

24. To be successful, IWRSS will need to ensure products are repeatable, reproducible, and useful. Having established FIM guidelines, FIM QAQC standards, and a consumable FIM data are essential to IWRSS. NOAA appreciates working with Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector to establish these guidelines and make them available as part of the Federal toolbox. FIM and IWRSS

25. Guidelines are only useful when implemented Promote wide distribution of guidelines Get partner buy-in Work guidelines into quality assurance and control tools Continue working with partners to enhance the guidelines as methods evolve What next?

26. Contact Us: Mathew Mampara mmampara@dewberry.com mmampara@dewberry.com Victor Hom victor.hom@noaa.gov victor.hom@noaa.gov Stuart Geiger sgeiger@dewberry.com sgeiger@dewberry.com Questions