Options to Getting Maps

Effective that are affected by

the levee policy

Presentation to NORFMA Board

April 29, 2013

Outline

•Challenges with Flood Studies being on Hold

• Current Status of the Levee Policy

• What we currently know of the Levee Policy

• Options to Get Maps Effective that are not

dependent on the levee policy

Communities on-Hold Due to Levee

Policy

Community TSK_STAT Stream Miles Updated First-Time DFIRM Study Initiated

Skagit County- WA On Hold 85 Yes 2001

Pierce County- WA On Hold 197 Yes 2004

Lewis Co.- WA On Hold 686 Yes 2005

King County- WA On Hold 112 Yes 2005

Tillamook County- OR On Hold 88 Yes 2006

Clallam County, WA On Hold 3 Yes 2006

Whitman County, WA On Hold 805 Yes 2009

Snohomish County, WA On Hold 73 2006

Lane Co.- OR On Hold 154 2007

Anchorage (Girdwood)- AK On Hold 9 2007

Whatcom County- WA (Lower Nooksack PMR)

On Hold

74 2008

Whatcom County- WA - (Sumas) On Hold 23 2008

Valley County, ID On Hold 76 2009

Gem County, ID On Hold 46 2009

Snake River PMR On Hold 35 2009

Longview, WA PAL On Hold 11 2009

Cowlitz County, WA PAL On Hold 10 2009

Cowlitz River-Kelso, WA PAL On Hold 8 2009

Amazon Creek-Lane County, OR On Hold 8 2009

Portneuf River PAL-Pocatello- ID On Hold 7 2009

Washougal PAL-Clark County, WA On Hold 7 2009

City of Pendleton-Umatilla County, OR On Hold 6 2009

Reedsport PAL Douglas County, OR On Hold 4 2009

Clark Fork, ID (Lightning Cr) PAL On Hold 4 2009

Seward, AK Japanese Creek On Hold 3 2009

Woodland PAL Cowlitz County, WA On Hold 2 2009

Columbia County- OR On Hold 0 2009

Rainier PAL Columbia County, OR On Hold 0 2009

Scappoose PAL Columbia County, OR On Hold 0 2009

City of Colfax PAL-Whitman County, WA On Hold 0 2009

Placer Creek PAL-Shoshone, ID On Hold 1 2011

Communities on-Hold Due to Levee

Policy

Community Stream Miles Updated First-Time DFIRM Study Initiated

Skagit County- WA

On

Hold 85 Yes 2001

Pierce County- WA

On

Hold 197 Yes 2004

Lewis Co.- WA

On

Hold 686 Yes 2005

King County- WA

On

Hold 112 Yes 2005

Tillamook County- OR

On

Hold 88 Yes 2006

Clallam County, WA

On

Hold 3 Yes 2006

Whitman County, WA

On

Hold 805 Yes 2009

Snohomish County, WA

On

Hold 73 2006

Lane Co.- OR

On

Hold 154 2007

Whatcom County- WA (Lower Nooksack)

On

Hold

74 2008

Whatcom County- WA - (Sumas)

On

Hold 23 2008

Valley County, ID

On

Hold 76 2009

Gem County, ID

On

Hold 46 2009

•Contracts have limited duration before funding goes back to the Treasury

•For DFIRMs, it ties up all other studies in the community

•Flood Insurance stays with old, outdated maps

•LOMRs are tied to older maps

• etc.

Issues

Levee Analysis and Mapping Approach

•The entire “Revised Analysis and Mapping

Procedures for Non-Accredited Levees” available

through the FEMA library at:

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4954

•There are on-line recorded webinars overviewing the

approaches available for viewing and further

reference available through the FEMA library at:

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=5009

•Public Comment period ended on January 30, 2012

Comments are in review and may change things that are

discussed and presented today

Mapping Flood Hazards – Levee

Areas

Complete certification of

system submitted to FEMA

Mapped as contained

within levee system

boundaries

Certification submittal not

received or incomplete

Traditionally mapped as if

the levee did not provide a

reduction in flood risk

Why Modify our Current Approach?

• Throughout Map Modernization,

stakeholders expressed concern on the

“without-levee” procedures used to map

non-accredited levees

• In February 2011, a group of U.S.

Representatives and Senators wrote to

FEMA requesting a revision to the current

practice of mapping levees and their

associated flood risk.

• Stakeholders and Congress felt the

historical mapping approach did not reflect

the hazard reduction that some non-

accredited levees may still afford.

Process – Development of New

Approach

•FEMA placed on-going studies that include non-

accredited levees on-hold.

•FEMA established a Project Team that:

– Comprised of FEMA, US Army Corps of Engineers,

Industry and other experts

– Explored a spectrum of possible approaches;

– Evaluated the approach scenarios;

– Assessed the feasibility and implementation through

“proof of concept” case studies;

– Sought feedback from internal and external

audiences.

What's Next?

•We have received/reviewed all comments

– Currently categorizing them and are deciding what within the

approach should be changed.

•We will work with major stakeholders and participants in

some of our past External Stakeholder events to vet the

changes to the approach

•Finalize the Approach and perform a Cost Analysis

•Develop Procedure Memorandum (PM) and Guidance

•Publish PM and Guidance

•Roll-out Training to Regions and Mapping Partners

•Roll-out Approach to Public and Congress

National Academy of Sciences Report

Levees and the National Flood Insurance Program:

Improving Policies and Practices

Proposed Process Modification

NEW

Analysis Procedure

Accredited System

• Criteria: Entire Levee System or Flood Control Structure meets (or exceeds) 44 CFR 65.10 Criteria

• Mapping Approach: Mapping as Fully Accredited; Natural Valley Floodplain Analysis to Map Shaded Zone X and Levee Protection Note

Non-Accredited Levees

•New process allows a non-accredited levee to be broken

into multiple “Reaches”

•A “Reach” is a discrete section of a levee for which one of

the five levee analysis procedures can be applied

•Primarily data dependent:

– O&M Plan available?

– As-Builts/Levee Survey?

– Evaluation of overtopping erosion?

•Also depends upon modeling conditions:

•BFE compared to levee crest?

•Topographic/hydraulic conditions landward of the system

• Structurally sound?

• Closures/Tie-Ins?

So… What’s a Reach?

Recent structural analysis

completed

Operated and Maintained

Good Survey Information

Don’t know anything

about

Not maintained

No owner

No structural analysis

Look at modeling

conditions

Natural Valley

Procedure

Barely overtops & is

armored: community chooses

to do extra evaluation for

overtopping

Overtops but not

armored

Has required freeboard

Overtopping Procedure

Structural-Based Inundation

Procedure

Sound Procedure

Proposed Levee Analysis and Mapping

Process

Natural Valley

•Natural Valley – Criteria: Levee Doesn't Meet 65.10 and

Doesn’t Impact the Flood Elevation

– Mapping Approach: Natural Valley Floodplain

Analysis Only to Map Special Flood Hazard

Area

Natural Valley Modeling

•Riverine

Modeled without the levee impeding flow

– Levee will remain in ground profile,

– Will not prevent water from moving landward

• Coastal:

Coastal levee will be included in storm surge model setup

– This BFE will be extended landward

– No wave conditions analyzed landward of levee, unless deemed

to be the actual conditions.

Sound Reach

•Sound Reach – Criteria: Levee is designed and

constructed to be structurally sound

and meet appropriate factors of

safety

– Mapping Approach: Natural Valley

Analysis to Map as Zone D

Proposed Levee Analysis and Mapping

Process

Freeboard Deficient

•Freeboard Deficiency –

Reach or System – Criteria: Levee is structurally sound and

top is higher than the flood elevation, but

does not have adequate freeboard.

– Mapping Approach: Natural Valley

Analysis to Map as Zone D

Proposed Levee Analysis and Mapping

Process

Overtopping

•Overtopping Inundation

Analysis – Criteria: Levee Crest is Lower than the flood

elevation, but it can be documented that the levee

can structurally withstand the 1% flood

– Mapping Approach: Overtopping Analysis to Map

Special Flood Hazard Area; Natural Valley Floodplain

Analysis to Map Zone D

Proposed Levee Analysis and Mapping

Process

Structural-Based Inundation

Procedure

•Structural-Based

Inundation Analysis – Criteria: Levee Doesn't Meet 65.10 Criteria

and accurate levee elevation information

– Mapping Approach: Breach Analysis to Map

Special Flood Hazard Area; Natural Valley

Floodplain Analysis to Map Zone D

The flood hazard is

reasonably identified when

all potential storage areas

and flow paths that can be

reached by breach flows

reflect the potential flood

hazard.

Structural-Based Inundation

Procedure

Proposed Levee Analysis and Mapping

Process

Natural Valley

•Natural Valley – Criteria: Levee Doesn't Meet 65.10 and

Doesn’t Impact the Flood Elevation

– Mapping Approach: Natural Valley Floodplain

Analysis Only to Map Special Flood Hazard

Area

Natural Valley Modeling

•Riverine

Modeled without the levee impeding flow

– Levee will remain in ground profile,

– Will not prevent water from moving landward

• Coastal:

Coastal levee will be included in storm surge model setup

– This BFE will be extended landward

– No wave conditions analyzed landward of levee, unless deemed

to be the actual conditions.

Possible Floodway Change

Levee Policy Bypass option

Levee Seclusion option

The purpose of this document is to define an option that will enable Regions to resume and finalize, in part, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) that have been delayed pending finalization of FEMA’s Levee Analysis and Mapping Procedures for those areas not affected by non‐accredited levees. This option would entail:

1)) Fencing off and clearly identifying the impact area associated with the non‐accredited levee, dike or other structure. This will often require that a rudimentary Natural Valley Analysis be performed to determine the true levee impact area.

2)) Transferring the effective flood hazard information from within the levee impact area (exactly as it is shown on the current FIRM) onto to the new/revised FIRM.

3)) Committing to a future revision of the FIRM panel to address the non‐accredited structure’s flood hazards, while reminding map users that this information remains in effect until such time as the FIRM is revised when the LAMP protocols are finalized.

This would allow all non‐levee elements of an ongoing study to move forward for use in flood insurance and floodplain management, while not changing the flood hazards associated with the on‐hold levee impact area by maintaining them in a static state exactly as shown on the currently published FIRM.

Levee Seclusion option

ATTENTION: The levee, dike, or other

structure inside this boundary has not

been shown to comply with Section 65.10

of the NFIP Regulations. As such, this

FIRM panel will be revised at a later date

to update the flood hazard information

associated with this structure. The

flood hazard data shown inside this

boundary (which have been re-published

from the May 5, 2004 FIRM for the City of

Floodville), should continue to be used

until this FIRM panel is revised to update

the flood hazard information in this area.