FEMA Non Regulatory Products Onur - floodsJune 5, 2014 FEMA Non‐Regulatory Products Our Experience...
27
June 5, 2014 FEMA Non‐Regulatory Products Our Experience – QA/QC Processes Onur Celik, CFM Amol Daxikar, CFM, GISP ASFPM 2014
Transcript of FEMA Non Regulatory Products Onur - floodsJune 5, 2014 FEMA Non‐Regulatory Products Our Experience...
June 5, 2014
FEMA Non‐Regulatory ProductsOur Experience – QA/QC Processes
Onur Celik, CFMAmol Daxikar, CFM, GISP
ASFPM 2014
OUTLINE BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
• Introduction and Standard Implementation• Overview of Products
OUR APPROACH:• Deliverables and their timing in Region 1• Coastal Products/Community Feedback
OUR CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:• Procedural and Technical Challenges• Stakeholder Response• QA/QC
Non‐Regulatory Products
BACKGROUNDNon‐Regulatory Products
Products introduced in 2010
The intent was to:
• Supplement Regulatory products
• Enable more comprehensive understanding of risks at watershed level by the local officials
BACKGROUNDNon‐Regulatory Products
Available Guidance Includes:
DRAFT Appendices N, O
Draft Memorandum for Coastal
and Dam Analyses
BACKGROUNDNon‐Regulatory Products
Flood Risk Products consist of 3 main components:
• Flood Risk Database (FRD), Report (FRR) and Map (FRM)
These are created by the following datasets: • Changes Since Last FIRM (CSLF)• Flood Depth and Analysis Grids• Flood Risk Assessment Dataset• Areas of Mitigation Interest (AOMI)
PRODUCT OVERVIEW ‐ CSLFNon‐Regulatory Products
PRODUCT OVERVIEW – DEPTH/VELOCITY GRIDSNon‐Regulatory Products
PRODUCT OVERVIEW – RISK ASSESSMENTNon‐Regulatory Products
PRODUCT OVERVIEW ‐ AOMINon‐Regulatory Products
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• FEMA Region I was one of among few Regions to adopt underEarly Demonstration Projects (EDP)
• Products were Funded under FY10 Task Orders
• Included full suite of FRPs (or RMPs) for Riverine as well ascoastal projects
• Watershed products were completed in February 2011
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• Watershed project included incorporation of a revisedfloodplain for Shawsheen River in Middlesex County, MA
• Shawsheen River was restudied under HMTAP contract back in2006‐2008
• Middlesex County DFIRM study had began under Map Modprogram and the county became effective in 2010 without the inclusion of Shawsheen River study
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• Thus Shawsheen became a prime target to implement FRPs at the same time getting the revised floodplain incorporated
• Shawsheen River FRP was completed in less than 5 months
• FEMA held an outreach meeting to introduce these products and discuss the HMTAP study after the preliminary issuance
• Products included complete suite of FRPs that were conceived as a Risk MAP solution
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• We took extensive GIS data collection efforts to explore what communities can provide
• Most communities provided their GIS data that included basic infrastructure layers in addition to parcels and building footprints
• We included most of this data in these products
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• First example maps were shown to FEMA and MA DCR to get their feedback
• State and FEMA both objected velocity grids as these grids showed the variations in velocity across stream corridors that was questionable
• All other products were revised to include their comments which were mostly cosmetic
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• These products were well received at the outreach meeting
• Most community officials found changes since last map product to be most useful to understand the differences b/w current and preliminary maps
• Building footprints were shown on the CSLF and all participants thought that this information can be misused by the general citizens
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• Subsequently FEMA decided not to show building footprints on the future products
• While this was going on, many coastal studies throughout R1were going through FSR meeting
• In many cases, FSR meeting led to the changes in transect placement and subsequently went through changes in coastal analysis in some locations
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• Due to this fact, all stakeholders thought that the timing of the products (after preliminary issuance) was better suited to introduce these products as against presenting at the FSR meeting
• FEMA decided to universally adopt this approach for all studies
• Since then all studies (2011‐present) were done this way
DELIVERABLES/TIMING IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• At the FSR meeting it was decided that we will show linework format work map product
• This included showing linework of new floodplain analysis in the changes since last map format
• FEMA requested that we provide an introduction of the FRPs during this meeting showing complete examples
COASTAL PRODUCTS IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• Coastal FRPs needed some enhancement as development in coastal areas of Region I is widespread and sensitive
• FEMA decided to include the basic components of the FRP suite but added Wave Height Grids in lieu of Depth Grids
• Furthermore, FEMA added coastal hazard id map that depicts the dominant engineering factors that are the decision points in coastal risk mapping
COASTAL PRODUCTS IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• Wave Height grids depicted wave heights in 3 different categories: > 3 ft, 1.5‐3 ft and less than 1.5 ft
• This was selected due to the LiMWA guidance that was implemented on all coastal studies
• Depth of 1.5‐3 ft represented LiMWA areas where some states regulate the coastal construction
COASTAL PRODUCTS IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
COASTAL PRODUCTS IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK IN REGION INon‐Regulatory Products
• Generally positive acceptance of the products
• Most communities liked CSLF more so than the other products
• FRD is a hit with the communities who possess GIS capabilities
• Stakeholders requested building footprints are to be excluded from showing them on any maps (but ok for the analysis)
OUR CHALLENGESNon‐Regulatory Products
• Limited guidance especially for coastal
• Non‐Existent Experience with the real‐world usability, dissemination and functionality as these products were being launched first time
• Quality issues due to free‐form nature
OUR SOLUTIONSNon‐Regulatory Products
Scope was tailored for particular use (coastal vs. inland)
• Coastal Wave Height Grids instead of Depth Grids
• Building footprints excluded as requested
• Products released at the CCO Meeting
OUR SOLUTIONSNon‐Regulatory Products
Additional Quality Control steps were implemented.
Automation through production and QC scripts
Assign right staff to each product review
Supplement the automated checks with manual
reviews of anomalies
CONCLUSION/QUESTIONSNon‐Regulatory Products
As a result, products are:
Compliant with FEMA requirements and expectations
Positive Stakeholder feedback
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS?
