Read Microsoft Word - 2007 Abstract and Bio 5 31 07.doc text version

TABLE OF CONTENTS SESSION A TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 10:30 A.M.-12:00 NOON

A-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Watershed Restoration...................................1 Moderator: Kristin White, CDM A Big Picture Look At Floodplain Management in Texas and the U.S...............................................................................1 Heidi M. Carlin, CFM, Lower Colorado River Authority Lochen Wood, CFM, Lower Colorado River Authority North Taylor Slough Creek Watershed ­ Assessment at Camp Mabry in Austin, TX.....................................................2 Krista Bethune, P.E., CFM, Watershed Concepts Stephanie Thompson, CFM, Watershed Concepts The Beltway 8 Project: A Comprehensive Watershed-wide Approach to No Adverse Impacts...............................................................3 Jennifer J. Walker, P.E., Dodson and Associates, Inc. A-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Community Resilience...........5 Sponsored By: NOAA-CSC Moderator: Todd Davison, NOAA Gulf Services Center Considering `Community Resilience' in Floodplain Management........5 Shirley Laska, Ph.D., University of New Orleans - Center for Hazards, Assessment, Response, and Technology Don't Let a Disaster Do You In!................................................................5 Diana McClure, IBHS, "Open For Business" Resilience and Disaster Management in the Indian Ocean: Putting the "Bounce" into Managing Disasters in Coastal Zone..........5 Pam Rubinoff, Rhode Island Sea Grant

i

A-3

Flood Loss Mitigation: Public Infrastructure..........................................6 Moderator: Delton Schwalls, PE, CFM, CDM The Levee Challenge: Kentucky's Pro-Active Approach to Public Safety, Education and Certification.............................................6 Carey Johnson, Map Modernization Program Manager John Lewis, P.E. Laura Algeo, P.E. Michael Taylor, P.E., CFM Partnering for Public Infrastructure Mitigation..............................7 Alisa M. Sauvageot, CFM, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. June 2006 Flood Emergency Impact on PennDOT Structures ­ Response and Recovery............................................................8 Donna N. Newell, P.E., CFM, NTM Engineering, Inc. Bryan Spangler, P.E. Rachel L. Tereska, P.E. Jeffery S. MacKay, P.E.

A-4

Going Coastal: Using Technology to Assess Coastal Risk (I).....................10 Moderator: Mark Mauriello, New Jersey DEP, Land Use Management Primary Frontal Dune Delineation for Velocity Zone Mapping In Massachusetts..................................................................10 Rebecca Haney, MA Coastal Zone Management Program Daniel Sampson HURREVAC ­ New Applications for Coastal and Inland Flood Plain Managers...................................................................11 Karen S. Townsend, Sea Island Software John Townsend William Massey Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System: Providing Data and Products for Users of the Coastal Environment..............................12 Ann E. Jochens, Ph.D., J.D., Research Scientist, Texas A & M University

ii

A-5

National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Levees ­ Policy, Analysis And Accreditation.........................................................................14 Sponsored By: PBS&J Moderator: Michael DePue, PE, CFM, D.WRE, PBS&J Alternatives for Increasing Flood Insurance Participation for Communities Protected by Levees.............................................14 Ricardo Pineda, NFIP State Coordinator, California Maria Lorenzo Lee Jen Marcy Ed Thomas, Esq. Jennifer Duffy, P.E. FEMA Levee Analysis Requirements for Floodplain Mapping..........15 David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E., PBS & J Michael DePue, P.E., CFM, D.WRE, PBS & J The Levee Accreditation Process in Indianapolis...........................15 Michael DePue, P.E., CFM, D.WRE, PBS & J Mike Hanke Mary Jo Mullen, P.E., CFM

A-6

Floodplain Mapping: Technology: GIS/Modeling.................................17 Moderator: Sarah Widing, ENSR GIS Based Two-Dimensional Flood Modeling..............................17 Reinaldo Garcia, Ph.D., FLO-2D Software, Inc. Juan Jose Rodriguez Jim O'Brien Benefits of GIS Customization in Floodplain Mapping....................18 David Rubenstein, Environmental Designer, URS Corporation Rich Zwaap Dynamically Integrating Hydrodynamic Models to Improve Flood Map Reliability in Urban Areas and Improve Water Resource Management..................................................19 Richard A. Crowder, Ph.D., Associate Director, Halcrow Grp. Ltd. Elliot Gill

A-7

Floodplain Mapping: Application ­ Floodplain Mapping ­ Mitigation Applications.................................................................................20

iii

Moderator: Sheila Norlin, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Applying Floodplain Mapping Technology for Minimizing Repetitive Loss Properties....................................................................20 ChiChung Chang, Ph.D., CFM, Project Director, URS Corporation Mark Price Ross Richardson, CFM Shifting the Floodplain Paradigm.............................................22 John E. Hays, Floodplain Coordinator, Santa Cruz County Flood Control District Watershed Parameter and Model Maintenance Implementation in the Southwest Florida Water Management District.............................23 Stephanie Dunham, P.E., SW Florida Water Management District Gordon McClung, P.E. David Jones, P.E. A-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: H&H Modeling.....................25 Moderator: Dick Wild, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Two-Dimensional Flow Modeling for a Flood Insurance Study in Montana...........................................................................25 Katherine J. Chase, P.E., Hydrologist, USGS Water Resources Division John Liou Using Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling to Determine Flood Impacts.............................................................................25 Rachel L. Tereska, P.E., Principal, NTM Engineering, Inc. Donna M. Newell, P.E., CFM Rob Jaconski, P.E. The Development of a UK National Flood Risk Assessment............27 Robert Deakin, Knowledge Manager ­ GIS, Halcrow Group, Ltd. Richard Harpin

iv

SESSION B TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1:45 P.M.-3:15 P.M.

B-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Avoiding Stormwater Impacts.........................29 Moderator: Firas Makarem, CDM River Clyde Flood Management Strategy: An example of Integrated Catchment StudyIn a City Affected by Fluvial and Tidal Flooding.............................29 Pascal Lardet, Ph.D., Halcrow Group Ltd. James W. Fleming Kenneth M. Barr Stormwater Management vs. Storm Drain Design Standards (Why Do Downstream Properties Continue to be Flooded?)...................................31 Martin B. Covington, III, P.E., CFM, DWRE, Carroll County Government Bureau of Resources Management Watershed Improvement/Restoration in an Urban Setting........................32 James M. Eisenhardt, PWS, Senior Consultant, Duffield Associates, Inc. B-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Hurricane Recovery Planning (I)..................................................................................34 Moderator: Lillian Pitts, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Long-Term Recovery Planning...........................................................34 Mary M. Shaw, Principal Urban Planner, URS Corporation Comprehensive Hurricane Preparedness Studies ­ Taking the Traditional Hurricane Evacuation Study to a New Level..........................................35 Brandon Bolinski, FEMA Region IV Brock Long, Hurricane Program Manager William Massey Updating DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plans: OH, NO, NOT AGAIN.........36 Stuart Wallace, AICP, Hazard Mitgation Planner, James Lee Witt Assoc.

v

B-3

Flood Loss Mitigation: Mitigation 101................................................38 Sponsored By: URS Moderator: Bel Marquez, URS Corporation Maximizing HMGP Grants During Post-Disaster Recovery........................38 Lawrence Frank, AICP, CFM Don Glondys, CFM Southern CA Losses Avoided Study.....................................................39 Shabbar Saifee, Section Chief, Mitigation, FEMA Headquarters L. Gina White Alan Springett Recovery Planning and Mitigation Planning/Working Together...................43 Rich Roths, AICP, Principal Planner, URS Corporation

B-4

Going Coastal: Living at the Coast....................................................44 Moderator: Lynne Dingerson, NOAA Coastal Services Center Poquoson Virginia: A City on the Rise Recovers from Isabel.....................44 Deborah Mills, Hazard Mitigation Program Manager, VDEM Charles Burgess Judy Wiggins The Delaware River forces Task Forces...............................................45 Laura Tessieri, P.E., CFM, Delaware River Basin Commission John A. Miller, P.E., CFM, Princeton Hydro, LLC How Many People Live in the Coastal Zone?......................................................46 Mark Crowell, Physical Scientist, FEMA Scott Edelman, P.E. Kevin Coulton, P.E., CFM

B-5

National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Levees (I).............................48 Moderator: Wayne Berggren, FEMA Santa Maria River Restudy...............................................................48 Ray Lenaburg, Senior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region IX Siamak Esfandiary, Ph.D., P.E., CFM Moe Khine, P.E. The Levee Certification Program: Hydraulic Modeling and Mapping of Areas behind Older Embankments.............................................................49

vi

Lisa Ackerman Jeffrey, P.E., CFM, Evans Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton Miles Herbert, P.E., CFM Pilot Study on the Strength of Dikes of the River Lek in the Netherlands using a GIS-based Method Developed by Fugro (FAST4DMAP®)........................50 Martin van der Meer, M.Sc., Fugro Ingenieursbureau B.V. Kin Sun Lam, M.SC Hans Knotter B-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Cost Effective Approaches and QA/QC Initiatives....................................................................................52 Sponsored By: G & O Moderator: Frank R. Finch, PE, Greenhorne and O'Mara Cost Effective Approaches to Mapping Flood Hazards Behind Levees that Cannot be Certified..................................................................52 Vince DiCamillo, CFM, Vice President, Greenhorne and O'Mara William Blanton, CFM Kevin Donnelly, P.E. CFM Cost Effective Approaches to Structure Surveys for Limited Detailed Studies.......................................................................................53 Dave Guignet, P.E. CFM, Maryland Department of the Environment Justin King, CFM QA/QC Inspection of DFIRM Databases through Automated and Visual Procedures..................................................................................53 Mike McGinn, CFM, Lead CIS Analyst, Harvard Design and Mapping Adejoke Ige, CFM Pamela Mock B-7 Floodplain Mapping: Application ­ Map Changes..................................55 Moderator: Andrew M. Rooke, PE, CFM, TCB Around the FIRM in 90 Days: How to Get Your (C)LOMR Through the First Time..........................................................................................55 Delton S. Schwalls, P.E., CFM, Environmental Engineer, CDM Local Ownership of Floodplain Maps Through LOMC Pilot Program..........56 David Goode, P.E., CFM, Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program William Tingle, PG, CFM Management of Levee Certification in FEMA Region VI..........................57 David Patterson, P.E., CFM, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.

vii

Phil Nguyen Jack Quarles B-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Stormwater Drainage Systems....58 Moderator: Jake San Antonio, CFM, ENSR Storm Drain Watershed Planning in Fort Worth, TX...............................58 Joseph T. Barrow, P.E. CFM, Senior Water Resources Manager, Halff Associates Steven Eubanks, P.E. Sam Hinojosa, EIT, CFM Mike Crenshaw, P.E., CFM Shockoe Creek Combined Sewer System Flood Study...............................59 Sam Crampton, Water Resources Engineer, Dewberry John N. Paine, P.E. PH, CFM Nikki L. Roberts, P.E. The Twin Cities `Old Faithful' Finding Capacity Solutions for the I-35W Tunnel.......................................................................................60 David Filipiak, P.E., Principal, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

viii

SESSION C TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 3:45 P.M.­5:15 P.M.

C-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): How Adverse Is Adverse?........................................62 Moderator: David O. Odegard, CFM, CPCU, FEMA Region III NFIP Ordinance Updates ­ Now is the Time to Adopt No Adverse Impact......62 Christy Miller, CFM, Program Manager, Tetra Tech, Inc. The Curse of Minimum Standards......................................................63 Dale Hoff, CFM, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region VI Linda Delamare, CFM Does "No Adverse" Mean "Zero"?......................................................................64 Theodore E. DeBaene, P.E., CFM, Vice President, Owen and White, Inc. C-2 New Perspectives In Hurricanes and Recovery: Surge In General................66 Moderator: Doug Marcy, NOAA Coastal Services Center/ NWS Visualizing the Temporal and Spatial Extent of Hurricane Surge................66 Robert R. Mason, Jr., Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Dean Gesch Ben McGee D. Phil Turnipseed, P.E. Synthetic Tropical Cyclone Generation for Assessing Coastal Flooding.........67 David Froehlich, Ph.D., P.E., Consulting Engineering, Woolpert, Inc. Breaking New Ground in FEMA Storm Surge Studies.............................68 Michael Anderson, Program Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Zachary Toups Jack Quarles C-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Flood Mitigation Planning (I).............................69 Moderator: Chad Berginnis, CFM, OEMA ­ Mitigation Branch Silver Jackets ­ Many Agencies One Solution Reducing Risk.....................69 Nancy Olson, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region V Tammy Conforti

ix

Future of the Ijssel Delta: An Example of Contemporary River Basin Management and Adaptation to Climate Change.................................70 Teunis Louters, Project Manager, DHV BV. Joost ter Hoeven Marius Sokolewicz Dick Kevelam Hazard Mitigation Plans for Colleges & Universities: Differing Approaches to Applying Flood Mitigation Techniques in Urban and Rural Settings............72 Scott R. Choquette, CFM, Associate, Dewberry Tucker Husband Jane Sibley Frantz C-4 Going Coastal: Mitigation ­ Creating Safer Communities.........................74 Sponsored By: FEMA Moderator: Deborah Ingram, FEMA Risk Reduction Branch HMGP Reconstruction Grant Pilot for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.......................................................................................74 Keith Turi, Program Specialist, DHS, FEMA, Mitigation Division Cece Rosenberg NFIP Increased Cost of Compliance ­ post ­ Katrina..............................74 Russell Tinsley, Insurance Examiner, FEMA, Mitigation Division Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Guidelines Update...................75 Jonathan E. Westcott, P.E., Program Specialist, FEMA HQ Michael Anderson Krista Collier Gary Zimmerer C-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Levees (II)............................77 Moderator: Bruce Bender, Bender Consulting Services, Inc. Flood Insurance Meets Map Changes and Levees ­ Outreach Best Practices................................................................................................................77 Mary Jo Vrem, Project Manager, Floodsmart, NFIP Marketing Campaign Kamer Davis Lessons Learned in Deaccreditation...................................................78 Eric Simmons, CFM, FEMA Region IX Levee Recertification in Southern California.........................................79 Ray Lenaburg, Senior Engineer, FEMA Region IX

x

Jerry Sparks John Hoffman C-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Containing Costs.............................81 Moderator: Grant Smith, PE, Dewberry So Many Bridges, So Little Budget.....................................................81 Peter A. Richardson, P.E. CFM, Vice President, Green International Affiliates, Inc. Michael Goetz Ronald D. Miner, P.E. Getting the Most Bang for the Buck with Map Mod.................................82 John E. Hays, Floodplain Coordinator, Santa Cruz County Flood Control District John Wise That Pain in Your Side Might Be Your Appendix N: A Home Remedy using AcrGIS's ModelBuilder..................................................................83 Amelia Bergbreiter, CFM, Engineering Staff, PBS& J K.C. Robinson, CFM Christine Worley, P.E. C-7 Floodplain Mapping: Floodplain Mapping for the Future........................84 Sponsored By: Watershed Concepts Moderator: David M. Key, PE, CFM, Watershed Concepts The 1,600 Mile Challenge: Terrain Processing and Floodplain Mapping of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers in FEMA Region VI......................84 Andy Bonner, Engineering Department Head, Watershed Concepts Rick Nusz Brandon Banks Future Conditions Floodplain Mapping ­ The Good Bad and the Ugly.........85 Timothy J. Trautman, P.E., CFM, Flood Mitigation Program Manager Joseph B. Chapman City of Raleigh, North Carolina Future Conditions Floodplain Mapping Project...........................................................................86 Rick Prosser, P.E., CFM, Principal Associate, Watershed Concepts Danny Bowden Laura Arnold, EI, CFM

xi

C-8

Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Terrain ­ Laying the Groundwork for Mapping.................................................................................88 Moderator: Ken Hamer, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Development of Criteria for Determining Optimum Reach Lengths to LayOut Cross Sections in 1D Hydraulic Models...............................................88 M. Saleem Ashraf, Ph.D., P.E., Technical Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Using Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry to Map Shallow River Environments.......89 John Gerhard, CP, Group Manager, Woolpert, Inc. David Millar Robert Hilldale, P.E. Shallow Urban Flood Modeling......................................................90 David Froehlich, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, Consulting Engineering, Woolpert, Inc.

xii

SESSION D WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1:30 P.M.-3:30 P.M.

D-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Pot Luck...................................................91 Moderator: Juanita Thompson, FEMA Delaware River Court Case..............................................................91 Cleighton Smith, P.E., CFM, Senior Project Manager, Dewberry Susan Kleiner Nationwide Flood Vulnerability Assessment Using the HAZUS Flood Model.........................................................................................92 Philip J. Schneider, AIA, Hazards Risk Assessment Program National Institute of Building Sciences Vince Brown; Neil Blais Ecological Restoration in an Urban Watershed ......................................94 James M. Eisenhardt, PWS, Senior Consultant, Duffield Associates, Inc. Implementation of the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (Avery County, NC)..................................................................................95 Christopher Yow, P.E., CFM, Project Engineer, Buck Engineering (Michael Baker) Lloyd Dixon, P.E. Shawn Wilkerson D-2 New Perspectives In Hurricanes and Recovery: Flooded Buildings Recovery....................................................................................96 Moderator: Ronald Miner, PE, CDM Historic Preservation in Light of Historic Devastation..............................96 Mike J. Robinson, CFM, REM Creative Services Manager, PBS&J Repetitive Loss Mitigation Data Modeling.............................................97 Dale Kirby, Lead Programmer, Solutient A New Perspective on Elevation: Bringing Substantially Damaged Historic Buildings into Compliance..............................................................98 Monica Farris, Ph.D., University of New Orleans-CHART French Wetmore, CFM Sarah Stack, MPA

xiii

Old Perspectives with a New Name: Multi-objective Floodplain Management at the Neighborhood Level..................................................................99 Sarah Stack, MPA, University of New Orleans-CHART French Wetmore, CFM Michael Wesley, CFM D-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Assessing Damage Avoided..............................100 Moderator: Steve McMaster, CFM, Nebraska Dept. of Natural Resources Greenville County's Action Plan to Alleviate Structure Flooding...............100 Steve G. Godfrey, P.E., CFM, Senior Associate, Woolpert, Inc. Jason Gillespie Case Study Evaluation of Flood Loss Mitigation Benefits Using Various Flood Loss Estimation Methodologies........................................................101 Edwin Revell, El, CFM, Flood Plain Adminstrator, City of Birmingham Denise Pruitt, CFM Losses Avoided as a Result of FEMA Mitigation Projects Along the Red River in North Dakota..........................................................................102 Doug Bausch, Physical Scientist, FEMA Region VIII Jeanine D. Petterson What's Wrong With My FEMA BCA?..............................................................103 Don Glondys, CFM, Principal Risk Analyst, URS Corporation Shabbar Saifee Brooke Griggs D-4 Going Coastal: Map Modernization at the Coast...................................105 Moderator: Sue Hoegberg, Dewberry Coastal Barrier Resources System Map Modernization............................105 Stephen Kalaf, CFM, Special Mapping Service Department,Dewberry Katie Niemi Coastal Storm Surge and Flood Modeling Due To Natural Hazards...........106 J. G. Boon, Msc, WL Delft Hydraulics Storm Surge and Tsunami Modeling for Coastal Urban Flood Mitigation.................................................................................107 Jimmy S. O'Brien, Ph.D., P.E., President, FLO-2D Software, Inc. Reinaldo Garcia

xiv

Coastal 500-year Methodology ­ Guidance for Determining the 0.2%-AnnualChance Coastal Event...................................................................108 Michael Anderson, Region VI Regional Management Center Program Manager Krista Collier Jonathan Wescott D-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Education...........................110 Moderator: Allen Groover, Dewberry Cover Your Community ­ Flood Insurance in High Risk Areas.................110 Mary Jo Vrem, Project Manager, Floodsmart NFIP Marketing Campaign, FEMA Meg Bartow Bruce Bender Educational Material for Non-Floodplain Managers..............................111 Rod Emmer, Ph.D., Associate Professor Research, Louisiana Sea Grant Jim Wilkins, Ph.D. Floodplain Map Updates: Educating Local Realtors..............................112 John P. Callen, CFM, Project Manager, JEO Consulting Group, Inc. Lalit Jha, P.E., CFM Devin Biesecker, P.E. Recovery Mapping: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly..........................113 Diana Herrera, CFM, Natural Hazards Program, FEMA Region VI D-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Tools for Automated Mapping............114 Moderator: Jeff Tornatore, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Automated Floodplain Delineation...................................................114 Leo R. Kreymborg, Project Manager, PBS& J David Williams Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE Iwan M. Thomas Conclusions and Recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC) Study on Floodplain Mapping Technologies........................................115 David Maune, Ph.D., CP, CFM, Dewberry & Davis LLC Scott Edelman, P.E. The UK Flood Risk Management Research Consortium: New Technologies for Floodplain Inundation Mapping......................................................168 Nigel Wright, Professor, UNESCO-IHE

xv

Evaluation of the Applicability of Floodplain Re-delineation in Rural Arkansas Watersheds................................................................................117 Surya P. Ravulaparthy, P.E., CFM, FTN Associates Ltd. Sarada V. Kalikivaya, EI, CFM D-7 Floodplain Mapping: Getting the Most out of Flood Mapping..................118 Moderator: Elizabeth Krousel, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Maximizing New DFIRMs: Additional Uses of New Maps from Emergency Management to Public Outreach......................................................118 William B. Meyer, CFM, AMEC Earth and Environmental John Crofts, CFM Thomas Ward, P.E., CFM The Pro-Active Approach: Preparing for Your Community to Get the Highest Possible Benefit from the Map Modernization Program..........................119 Jim Meador, CFM, Senior Scientist, PBS& J Suzanne Vermeer, P.E., CFM Increasing Awareness in the Map Mod World.......................................120 Lisa Jennings, CFM, Senior Specialist, FEMA Region VI Shari Brand Diane Calhoun, CFM A New Method for Decision Support in Flood Management, Aimed at Societal Consensus Building.....................................................................121 Jos Dijkman, MSc, Flood Management Engineer, Delft Hydraulics Monique Villars, MSc D-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Dam Break Modeling............122 Moderator: Craig Kennedy, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Dam Break Modeling Using Unsteady HEC-RAS for Gwinett County's NRCS Reservoirs.................................................................................122 Duncan Hastie, P.E., Project Manager, Dewberry Sam Fleming, P.E. Sam Crampton, E.I.T. Overview of Hydrologic and Hydraulics Methodologies Utilized in Dam Breach Inundation Analyses.....................................................................123 Matthew Dudley, PE, CFM, Senior Water Resources Manger, URS Corp.

xvi

Dam Break Flood Hazard Mapping using FLO-2D...............................124 Donald J. Montgomery, P.E., Senior Engineer, MWH Americas, Inc. Jimmy S. O'Brien, Ph.D., P.E. Carmen Bernedo Improved Methods of Rapid Inundation Modeling for Dam Break Analysis.................................................................................125 Richard A. Crowder, Associate Director, Halcrow Group Ltd. Simon Kovacevic Richard Harpin, Ph.D. Roger Falconer, Ph.D.

xvii

SESSION E WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 4:00 P.M.-5:30 P.M.

E-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Nonstructural Applications and Opportunities.......................................................................................................127 Sponsored By: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Moderator: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nonstructural Measures on Onion Creek in Fort Worth District ................127 Randall Behm, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nonstructural Measures in the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program [MsCIP]..............................................................................................................127 Gene Barr, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nonstructural Measures in the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Project [LaCPR] .........................................................................127 Larry Buss, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers E-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Modeling Tropical Flooding...................................................................................128 Moderator: Gary Guhl, PBS&J Enhancing National Weather Service River Flood Forecasts with Graphical Flood Severity Inundation Mapping..................................................128 Benjamin F. Pope, III, Water Resources Engineer, Watershed Concepts Douglas C. Marcy Jodie Towers Mapping the Hurricane Katrina Storm Surge Crest in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana...........................................................................129 D. Phil Turnipseed, P.E., Hydrologist, U. S. Geological Survey Office of Surface Water Dean Gesch K. Van Wilson, P.E. Numerical Experiments to Quantify Hurricane Storm Surge Attenuation by Coastal Marshes and Barriers Islands.............................................130 John Atkinson, Ph.D., Water Resources Engineer, Ayres Associates Shintaro Bunya, Ph.D. Joannes Westerink, Ph.D.

xviii

E-3

Flood Loss Mitigation: Flood Mitigation Planning (III).......................131 Moderator: Roxanne K. Gray, Wisconsin Emergency Management CRS and Local Mitigation Plans......................................................131 Karen Helbrecht, Mitigation Planner, FEMA David Stroud Shannon Burke Local Mitigation Planning: Integrating Mitigation Plans into ongoing Community Planning....................................................................131 Kathy Wissmann, Mitigation Planner, FEMA Local Mitigation Planning: Opportunities, Challenges and Plan Updates....132 Karen Helbrecht, Mitigation Planner, FEMA Shannon Burke Kathy Wissmann

E-5

National Flood Insurance Issues: Providing Assistance to Communities.......................................................................................................133 Moderator: William Nechamen, CFM, NY Dept. Environ. Conservation Real Time Floodplain Management ­ The Interactive Open House............133 Charles J. Wright, P.E., Coordinator, WCFC OSM, Warren Co., Kentucky Steve Hunter, AICP; Jeff Lashlee, P.E. Melissa Armendt, P.E. Pursing Automatic Adoption of Flood Ordinances ­ A Case Study in Maine..................................................................................134 Sarah Widing, Civil Engineer, ENSR Corporation Thomas Marcotte, CFM Matthew Kennedy, P.E. CFM Getting Rid of Community Assistance Jitters.......................................135 Linda Delamare, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region VI Dale Hoff

E-6&7 Map Mod Town Hall Meeting.........................................................137 Sponsored By: FEMA Moderator: Doug Bellomo, FEMA Risk Analysis Branch FEMA's Floodplain Boundary Standard..........................................137 Rick Sacbibit, Program Specialist, FEMA Headquarters Turgay Dabak

xix

Levees - Mapping Inventory...........................................................137 Kelly Bronowicz, Program Specialist, FEMA Headquarters Craig Kennedy New, Validated, or Updated Engineering (NVUE).................................138 Rick Sacbibit, Program Specialist, FEMA Headquarters Steve Jencen E-8a Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Streambank Erosion.............139 Moderator: David Fowler, CFM Isthmus Protection Lake Kittimaqundi, Columbia Maryland.....................139 Pieter Dahmen, P.E., Senior Engineers, Professional Associate, HDR Engineering, Inc. Antelope Park Stream Stabilization and Restoration..............................140 Thomas E. Riley, P.E., Senior Project Engineer, The Flatwater Group, Inc. Nicole Fleck-Tooze, AICP, CFM Dean Eisenhauer, Ph.D., PE Erosion Setback Analysis and Geomorphic Assessment of Martinez Wash, Yavapai County, Arizona...............................................................142 Kofi Awumah, Ph.D., PE, CFM, Prestige Engineering Consultants, LLC Udaya Prakash, PE E-8b Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Managing Complex Watersheds................................................................................143 Moderator: Will Thomas, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. The DFIRM/DCS as part of a Comprehensive Water Resources Framework: The Flood Study Geodatabase and NHD in NYS DEC............................143 Richardo Lopez-Torrijos, NYS Floodplain Mapping Program Coordinator, IAGT/NYS DEC Jeff Simley Use of an Unsteady Flow Model Created for FEMA to Assess Stormwater Conveyance Improvements.............................................................144 Jake San Antonio, CFM, EIT, Engineer, ENSR Corporation Matthew Kennedy, P.E. CFM Margaret White Modeling Complex Flood Control Projects: A Hungarian Experience......145 Pal Hegedus, P.E., D.WRE, Senior Associate, RBF Consulting

xx

Sandor Kovacs, Ph.D.

xxi

SESSION F THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 10:30 A.M.-12:00 NOON

F-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): No Adverse Impacts ­ Urban.........................146 Moderator: John McShane, Environmental Protection Agency Making Space for Water ­ The European Journey................................146 Richard Harpin, Ph.D., CEng, MICE, MIWEN, Halcrow Inc. David Murphy Helen Samuels Recycling Urban Flood Protection Infrastructure: A Case Study...............148 Randy Stambaugh, P.E., CFM, Metro Louisville Floodplain Manager R. L. Mullins, Ph.D., P.E., AICP, PMP Gung Ho! Call for Floodplain and Wetland Managers to Pull Together......149 Edward A. Thomas, Esq., Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Rodney Emmer, Ph.D. Jeanne Christie F-2 New Perspectives In Hurricanes and Recovery: Hurricane Recovery Planning (II)..........................................................................................151 Moderator: Thomas J. Schweitzer, PBS&J Flood Mitigation & Floodplain Management, Challenges and Opportunities in Developing Countries ...................................................................151 P. G. Sousa-Costa, DMS Foundation International Louisiana's Hazard Mitigation Planning Pilot Grant Program..................151 Stuart Wallace, AICP, Hazard Mitigation Planner, James Lee Witt Associates Lessons Learned from Long-Term Community Recovery Plan Development after Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi.............................................152 Jae G. Park, Ph.D., Senior Project Manager, PBS & J F-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Tools for Flood Mitigation..............................154 Moderator: Maggie Mathis, CFM, Dewberry Enhancements to and Practical Applications of the National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool ....................................................................154 Adrienne Sheldon, Senior Environmental Engineer, URS Corporation

xxii

Errol Garren Jennifer Sparenberg Predicting Structural Flooding in Harris County, Texas ­ An Inundation Analysis Through GIS..................................................................155 Brett Sachtleben, P.E., CFM, Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation Gary Bezemek, P.E. Brian Tao, P.E. Sound Permit Processing is a Key to Flood Hazard Code Compliance.........156 Donald Gauthier, CFM, Senior Engineer, Unincorporated King County F-4 Going Coastal: State of the Art Coastal Modeling for FEMA Program.......158 Sponsored By: Dewberry Moderator: Zekrollah Momeni, PE, CFM, Dewberry State of the Art Coastal Flood Hazard Analyses for Puerto Rico...............158 Jeffrey Gangai, CFM, Coastal Engineer, Dewberry Paul Weberg Brian Batten, Ph.D., CFM Elena Drei-Horgan, Ph.D., CFM Hawaii Hurricane Restudy.............................................................160 Ray Lenaburg, Senior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region IX Federal Insurance & Mitigation Division Siamak Esfandiary, Ph.D., P.E., CFM Jeff Gangai, CFM Updating the Pamlico Sound (North Carolina) SLOSH Basin with High Resolution LiDAR Data.................................................................161 John Dorman, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Kevin Slover Brock Long Wilson Shaffer F-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Flood Mitigation Programs......163 Sponsored By: FEMA Moderator: Michael Grimm, FEMA Risk Reduction Branch NFIP 2007 Floodplain Management Program Updates...........................163 David Stearrett, Section Chief, FEMA, Floodplain Management Section Rachel Sears Unified Hazard Mitigation Grants....................................................163

xxiii

Deborah Ingram, Branch Chief, DHS, FEMA, Mitigation Risk Reduction Mike Grimm Tony Hake Freeboard: Building Code Requirements, and the Benefits and Costs of Freeboard.................................................................................164 Christopher P. Jones, P.E., Christopher Jones & Associates John Ingargiola F-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ DFIRM Production & Maintenance....165 Moderator: Gerald L. Robinson, PE, CFM, Christopher Burke Engineering DFIRM Maintenance ­ The Next Step In Making Maps Truly Paperless.....165 Troy Carmann, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, ICON Engineering, Inc. Bill DeGrott, P.E. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Automated Quality Review Tool............166 Katherine Hess, CFM, Hazard Mapping Analyst, Dewberry Ken Logsdon, Jr. Enhanced Technical and Coordination Methods to Prepare Revised DFIRMs for Miami-Dade County, Florida......................................................167 Gilbert Jones, P.E., Department Manager, Dewberry Mathini Sreetharan, P.E. Debasri Mitra F-7 Floodplain Mapping: Cooperative Efforts and Advanced Technology......169 Sponsored By: Michael Baker Moderator: Turgay Dabak, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Cooperative Efforts and Advanced Technology Create a New County-wide FIRM Collier County Flood Insurance Study ­ Part I............................169 Sean D. Roche, P.E., RMC4 Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Brad G. Loar, Director Robert C. Wiley, P.E., CFM Cooperative Efforts and Advanced Technology Create a New County-wide FIRM Collier County Flood Insurance Study ­ Part II........................170 Zhida Song-James, Senior Technical Consultant, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Mathini Sreetharan Richard S. Tomasello, P.E. Robert C. Wiley, P.E., CFM

xxiv

Cooperative Efforts and Community Involvement in the Larimer County Flood Insurance Study..........................................................................171 Kevin Doyle, Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Susan Duba Hayes Dan Carlson Nancy Steinberger Variation of Flood Statistics as a Function of Record Length...................172 Brian G. Koper, Civil Associate, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Wilbert O. Thomas, Jr. F-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Hydrologic Modeling............174 Moderator: Scott W. Brookhart, PE, CFM, Greenhorne and O'Mara Estimating Probably Maximum Floods In Ungaged Rapidly Developing Watersheds ................................................................................174 Eric Dove, P. E., CFM, Senior Water Resources Engineer, Olsson Associates PMP To the Max: Finding the Critical Probable Maximum Storm Orientation................................................................................176 Gilbert Inouye, P.E., Engineer/Associate, Woolpert, Inc. David C. Froehlich, Ph.D. P.E. Bexar County Land Use and Impervious Cover Mapping.......................177 John S. Grounds, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, D.WRE, Grounds Anderson, LLC John Espinoza, PE, CFM; Elle Anderson, P.E., CFM; Brandon Grimm, GISP F-9 International Aspects and Issues: Flood Management in the Netherlands...179 Moderator: Adri Verwey, Delft Hydraulics Dutch Advances in Monitoring Systems for Early Warning and Prevention of Levee Breaching......................................................................179 Meindert A.Van, Ph.D., GeoDelft Jos Maccabiani, MSc Robert J. Meijer, Ph.D. Flood Protection and the Development of a Flood Risk Management Policy in the Netherlands...........................................................................180 Hans W. Balfoort, Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Innovations in Levee Design, Monitoring and Safety Control in the Netherlands..............................................................................181

xxv

Petrus T. M. Dircke, Msc., Director Water Management, ARCADIS Netherlands

xxvi

SESSION G THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1:45 P.M.-3:15 P.M.

G-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Green Technology.....................................182 Moderator: Erin Ansell, PE, CFM, CDM Green Infrastructure Best Management Practices ­ A Hypothetical Development for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska....................................182 Carter M. Hubbard, P.E., CFM, Water Resources Engineer, Olsson Associates Ben Higgins, P.E., CFM The Effects of Green Initiatives "Rain Gardens" on Water Quantity Issues.......................................................................................183 Kari Ann Mackenbach, CFM, Water Resources Specialist, URS Corporation Rusty Schmidt PROJECT GREEN (Green Valley Ecology, Environment, and Nature)......184 Curt Chandler, P.E., CFM, Public Works ­ Land Development Manager, City of Henderson Albert J. Jankowiak, P.E., CFM Matt Baird, P.E., CFM Matt Wilkinson, P.E., CFM G-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Local Perspectives............186 Moderator: James Meador, CFM, PBS&J Living on a Budget in the Path of Coastal Beauty and Hurricanes.............186 Ron Geiger, Water Resources Manager, HDR Engineering, Inc. Patrick Blandford Implementation of Flood Damage Reduction in Western NC..................187 Fred Royal, P.E., CFM, Water Resources Group Manager, Carter & Burgess Sandra Slayton, CFM Evaluation of Post Flood Risks in Northeastern Pennsylvania..................188 Deepa Srinivasan, AICP, CFM, President, Vision Planning & Consulting, LLC Jon Janowitz, P.E., CFM Hilary Stephens

xxvii

G-3

Flood Loss Mitigation: Flood Forecasting..........................................190 Moderator: Nikki Robberts, PE, FEMA Region III Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) for South West Scotland: A State-of-theArt Real Time Forecasting System....................................................190 Pascal Lardet, Ph.D., Halcrow Group Ltd. Michael Cranston, Ph.D. Micha Werner, Ph.D. Statewide Meteorological Program for Flood Prediction and Data Collection..................................................................................191 Kevin Houck, Senior Engineer, Colorado Water Conservation Board John Henz FEMA-NOAA Partnership: Complimenting NWS River Forecasts with Graphical Flood Severity Inundation Mapping.....................................193 Douglas C. Marcy, Physical Scientist Thomas Donaldson

G-4

Going Coastal: After the Hurricanes.................................................194 Moderator: Dave Stein, NOAA Coastal Services Center Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast Mapping after the Hurricanes: Coordinating Federal, State and Local Resources to Produce DFIRMS........................194 Stephen Altman, Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Zachary Toups Jack Quarles Roadmap for a Seamless Elevation Surface: Case Study in the Gulf of Mexico.................................................................................195 Lynne Dingerson, NOAA Coastal Services Center Keil Schmid Brian Hadley Adjusting Historical High Water Mark Elevations..............................195 Elle L. Anderson, P.E., CFM, Grounds Anderson, LLC Jacob P. Spenn, P.E., CFM John S. Grounds, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, D.WRE

G-5

National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Building Design ­ What Works and What Doesn't........................................................................197 Moderator: Dave Carlton, PE, ESA Adolfson, Water Resources

xxviii

A Study of NFIP Repetitive Loss Properties in FEMA Region II................197 Anna Foley, EIT, CFM, Project Manager, URS Corporation Richard Franks, Ceng, MICE, CFM; Patt Griggs, FEMA Region II Flood-Resistant Design and Construction through ASCE-24 and the Building Code........................................................................................198 John Ingargiola, DHS, FEMA, Mitigation Risk Reduction Christopher P. Jones, P.E. Enhancements to the FEMA RSDE Software for Determining Substantial Damage....................................................................................199 Don Glondys,CFM, Principal Risk Analyst, URS Corporation Lonnie Ward John Ingargiola G-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Managing Information....................201 Moderator: Tim McCormick, PE, CFM, Dewberry New Orleans District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ­ Flood Plain Management System Call Log and Map Viewer (ESRI Version)................201 Greg Gagliano, IT/GIS Project Manager, HDR Engineering, Inc. Philip Meric Portal Technology: A Collaborative Flood Study Review Tool..................202 E. Ray Rush, P.E., Information Solutions Manager, FMSM Engineers, Inc. Lisa Brandenburg, P.E. Onscreen Engineering and Floodplain Mapping Quality Control Review Using ArcMap.....................................................................................203 Kristen Martinenza, P.E., CFM, PBS & J Laura Chap, P.E., CFM Chris Moore G-7 Floodplain Mapping: Flood Mapping ­ State Initiatives (I)...................204 Moderator: David M. Key, PE, CFM, Watershed Concepts, Inc. North Carolina Map Maintenance Program Implementation (Restudies and LMOCs)....................................................................................204 Randy Mundt, Outreach Coordinator, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program John Dorman Tara Aims

xxix

The Indiana Floodplain Mapping Initiative: An Innovative Approach to a State Floodplain Mapping Program.........................................................205 David Knipe, P.E., CFM, Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources Mary Jo Mullen Floodplain Mapping and Management in Georgia.................................206 Ban Saman Yousif, P.E., Georgia Department of Natural Resources Collis Brown, CFM Michael DePue, P.E., CFM, D.WRE G-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Flood Mapping....................207 Sponsored By: Wallingford Software Moderator: David Fortune, Wallingford Software Real-time Flood Inundation Forecasting and Mapping for Hat Yai, Thailand....................................................................................207 Ruth Clarke, Wallingford Software (Asia) Ltd. Emma Tate Sompong Mahail National Flood Hazard Mapping for Scotland ­ An Innovative Approach....208 Tyrone Parkinson, Product Manager, HR Wallingford Ltd. David Ramsbottom Caroline McGahey Thames Estuary 2100 - A robust systems-based approach to long term flood risk management planning in the Thames Estuary......................................209 Paul Sayers, Group Manager - Flood Management, HR Wallingford Ltd. David Ramsbottom Ben Gouldy G-9 International Aspects and Issues: A Big Picture Look at Flood Management..............................................................................210 Moderator: Jared Windhauser, CFM, URS Corporation Floodplain Management in France: From Theory to Practice..................210 Philippe Gourbesville, Ph.D., University of Nice ­ Sophia Antipolis Preparation of Odra River Flood Protection Project..............................211 Janusz Zaleski, Ph.D., Wroclaw Technical University Bogdan Nowak

xxx

The Risk of Flooding in the Netherlands.............................................212 Marcel van der Doef, Netherlands Ministry of Transport Herman van der Most

xxxi

SESSION H THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 3:45 P.M.-5:15 P.M.

H-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Mapping the NAI Floodplain........................213 Moderator: Leo Kreymborg, PBS&J Map Modernization and the NFIP: Alabama's Use of Map Modernization to Enhance Knowledge of and Participation in the NFIP...........................213 Philip Hicks, Project Manager, Alabama Office of Water Resources Yong Sun Jung, EIT, CFM Ken Meredith Rita Nichols Model Maintenance in a NO ADVERSE IMPACT Community.................214 Karl McArthur, P.E., CFM, PBS & J Jacob Spenn, P.E., CFM Carl W. Woodward. P.E., CFM Can We Make Space For People and for Water? A Framework for Sustainable Flood Risk Management................................................................215 Peter H. von Lany, Principal Consultant, Halcrow Group Ltd. Richard Harpin H-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Community Impact...........217 Moderator: Edie Vinson-Wright, CDM A Case Study of the Value of NFIP Data to Building Applications for HMGP Projects: Jefferson Parish LA.........................................................217 Jim McKay, Special Programs Manager, Solutient Michael Wesley, CFM After the Wave ­ Recovery and Rebuilding Efforts in Sir Lanka after the Tsunami....................................................................................218 Suresh Hettiarachchi, Water Resources Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc. Critical Facilities ­ An Overview of FEMA 543, Improving Critical Facility Safety for Floods and High Winds....................................................219 Milagros Kennett, Architect/Project Manager Risk Management Series, FEMA

xxxii

H-3

Flood Loss Mitigation: Mitigating Repetitive Loss Structures..................220 Moderator: Jennifer Marcy, CFM, PBS&J Flood Mitigation in DeKalb County, Georgia: Planning, FEMA Grants, Project Implementation, Home Buyout Ranking, & CRS Re-Analysis.........220 Duncan Hastie, P.E., Project Manager, Dewberry Terrance Simpkins Willie Greene Navigate Through Severe Loss Trouble Water ­ Using Local Mitigation Alternatives (Flood Hazard Mitigation System)....................................221 Mark Price, Senior Specialist, FEMA Region VI ChiChung Chang, Ph.D., CFM Ross Richardson, CFM Decision Tool for Flood Mitigation Method for Rep Loss Properties..........222 Norma Jean Mattei, Ph.D., P.E., University of New Orleans Emre Ergen

H-4

Going Coastal: Using Technology to Assess Coastal Risk (II)..................223 Moderator: Scott Stone, CDM Fixing Coastal Flood Hazard Zones: Establishing the Coastal A-Zone vs Redefining the V-Zone Wave...........................................................223 Spencer Rogers, North Carolina Sea Grant Christopher P. Jones, P.E. Preparing for the Future with Wide Coastal Zones and Space for Rivers, the New Dutch Approach..................................................................224 Mathijs van Leden, Ph.D., Haskoning, Inc. (International) Gert Jan Akkerman Rene Zijlstra Prioritization Factors for Coastal Scoping Studies in Region I..................225 Timothy Hillier, P.E. CFM, Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc. Amol Daxikar Joseph F. Marrone, P.E.

H-5

National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Flood Insurance Issues..........227 Moderator: Paul Osman, CFM, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Retaining Flood Policies: The Role of a Floodplain Manager..................227 Mary Jo Vrem, Floodsmart NFIP Marketing Campaign, FEMA

xxxiii

Mary Margaret Connell Amy Avery Historical Maps Available on the FEMA Map Service Center Website.........228 J. Christopher Eckhart, CFM, FEMA Map Service Center/ZAI Claire Drury, MSC COTR eLOMA ­ The First Year and Future Plans.........................................229 David Mummert, eLOMA Coordinator, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Dan Natale, CFM Mike Godesky H-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Modeling.....................................230 Moderator: Gaston Cabanilla, PE, CFM, CDM 2-D Floodplain Hydraulic Modeling Using 1-D Hydraulic Models............230 Harshal Desai, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, PBS & J Matt Baird, P.E., CFM David Willilams, Ph.D. P.E., D.WRE Uncertainty Issues in Flood Inundation Mapping.................................231 Jerad Bales, Ph.D., Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Advances in the Numerical Modeling of Floods....................................232 Adri Verwey, WL Delft Hydraulics H-7 Floodplain Mapping: Flood Mapping ­ State Initiatives (II)....................234 Moderator: Dennis Lawlor, AMEC Earth & Environmental North Carolina Stream Mapping Project.............................................234 Roger Cottrell, Project Manager, Watershed Concepts Scott Edelman The State as a Resource: Alabama's Efforts to Obtain Best Available Data in the Map Modernization Process.......................................................235 John Ammons, P.E., Project Engineer, Alabama Office of Water Resources Michael Taylor, P.E., CFM Leslie Durham, P.E. Purvi Talati Automated Zone A Modeling in Crawford and Ellsworth Counties, Kansas................................................................................................................236 Gilbert Jones, P.E., CFM, Regional Branch Manager, Dewberry

xxxiv

Collin Olsen, CFM William Zung, CFM

H-8

Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Watersheds and Wetland Restoration................................................................................238 Moderator: Dan Sherwood, PE Feast or Famine ­ An Everglades Restoration Dilemma........................238 Richard D. Gibney, Senior Professional Associate, HDR Engineering, Inc. Caroline Masek Numeric Quantification of the Roles of Wetlands in Floodplain Management..............................................................................230 Burke Lokey, Water Resources Group Manager, Carter Burgess Wen Chen, Ph.D., P.E., CFM The funding Approach, Flood Control Benefits, and Larger Scale Implementation Role of a Small Restoration Project in the Gila River........240 Theresa M. Pinto, CFM, Project Manager, Flood Control District of Maricopa County Chuck Williams, P.E.

H-9

International Aspects and Issues: A U.K. Perspective...........................242 Moderator: Mark Riebau, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. A Risk Based Modelling Approach to Floodplain Management and Flood Forecasting in the U.K..................................................................242 Chris Whitlow, Ph.D., EdenVale Modelling Services The Role of Modern Flood Forecasting Systems in the Flood Loss Mitigation ­ A Country Wide Case in England and Wales.......................................243 Karel Heynert, M.Sc., Delft Hydraulics Doug Whitfield, M.Sc. Micha Werner, Ph.D. Case Study of Ironbridge, U.K., Mitigation..........................................244 Sten-Magnus Kullberg, President, Geodesign Barriers AB Astrid Marklund

xxxv

SESSION A TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 10:30 A.M. ­ 12:00 NOON

A-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Watershed Restoration Moderator: Kristin White, CDM A Big Picture Look at Floodplain Management in Texas and the United States

Heidi M. Carlin, CFM, Lower Colorado River Authority Lochen Wood, CFM, Lower Colorado River Authority Abstract

Multi-objective management has had ample potential of being used in Texas and the Nation as a way to achieve many land use and resource goals simultaneously. Floodplain management, land use planning, storm water management, water quality management, economic development, recreation management and open space management all have critical common components, but are often still dealt with separately. In the field of floodplain management, we are uniquely poised to identify the connectivity of these fields and begin implementing multi-objective management. By implementing a few simple concepts and methods in a local floodplain management program, additional work and trouble can begin to be avoided. In this presentation, we will review the status of multi-objective management in the field of floodplain management and show examples of methods that are currently being executed that need to be mimicked. In addition, we will identify some of the common mistakes that floodplain managers make that lead them away from the most effective programs they can achieve and we will offer new solutions. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Heidi M. Carlin Heidi M. Carlin, CFM works at the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) in Austin, Texas as the Assistant Floodplain Management Coordinator. Prior to working at the LCRA, Mrs. Carlin worked as the Assistant State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for two years. Mrs. Carlin has specialized in training local communities and has taught numerous workshops on the NFIP and how to best comply with its rules and regulations. Mrs. Carlin earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physical Geography from Texas State University ­ San Marcos in 2000 and graduated Summa Cum Laude.

1

North Taylor Slough Creek Watershed Assessment at Camp Mabry in Austin, TX

Krista A. Bethune, P.E., CFM, Watershed Concepts Stephanie Mercure Thompson, CFM, Watershed Concepts Abstract

· The results of this study have facilitated the Texas National Guard in mplementing and managing their watershed management programGIS analysis such as using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) subtraction was used to generate rates of erosion and aided in making priority recommendations Soil amendments, buffer enhancement via native species plantings, balanced grading, bioengineering, LID and water quality retrofits will improve water quality, reduce flooding, minimize cost and improve site aesthetics in the North Taylor Slough Creek watershed Camp Mabry is the headquarters of the Texas Military Forces, which includes the Texas National Guard (TXNG) and The Texas State Guard. This facility is entirely contained in the North Taylor Slough Creek Watershed (a tributary to the Colorado River), in Austin, TX. Existing land use practices, "quick fix" engineering construction activities, and lack of maintenance plans have all contributed to accelerated rill and gully erosion, failed storm drain control structures, impaired environmental habitat, and increased flooding in North Taylor Slough Creek. At Camp Mabry we were able to elucidate local watershed conditions by combining the efforts of extensive field survey and GIS Analysis for devising location-specific, prioritized solutions. Baseline data was collected and a stormwater inventory utilizing WISE open and closed system modules, geomorphic assessment, and hydrologic and hydraulic analysis was conducted. Upon completion of the numerous data collection efforts, an erosion survey was also performed to document the extent of in-stream, rill, gully, and tunnel erosion found throughout the installation. GIS analysis was used to evaluate the different types of problems occurring throughout the watershed; structural, maintenance and erosion, that are contributing to the overall impairment of Taylor Slough North Creek. Once identified, these problems were then prioritized based on the following; severity of problem type; threats to existing infrastructure; potential for water quality retrofit; opportunity to group with other areas, and opportunity for non-structural solutions. Once initial priorities were given, the sites were then compared against a DEM subtraction that was performed between 1997 data and 2004 data. In this process, the 2004 DEM was subtracted from the 1997 DEM to create a composite DEM between the two data sets. This analysis enabled us to see general rates of erosion throughout Camp Mabry and proved to be a valuable tool in reassessing our priority rankings. Based on the final rankings, conceptual recommendations were given that minimize construction impacts and promote natural, sustainable solutions using a combination of structural and non-structural practices that ultimately improve water quality, reduce flooding, minimize cost and improve site aesthetics. The analysis in the assessment can help to provide baseline and reference data; help understand the patterns of water and sediment transport that create and maintain the natural morphology of the channel and its associated floodplain; provide information for restoration, including descriptions of upslope connections to the riparian buffer and waterway; help identify the causes and not just the symptoms of problems needing correction; and revealing other restoration opportunities throughout Camp Mabry.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Krista Bethune Krista Bethune is a civil engineer with 7 years of experience in the water resources engineering arena. Ms. Bethune's focus has been primarily in the area of stream restoration, stormwater management, and

2

hydrologic and hydraulic studies (H&H). She has extensive experience working in the public sector, primarily with local municipalities and state agencies. Additionally, Ms. Bethune performs H&H modeling for floodplain mapping as part of FEMA's map modernization program for the purpose of updating floodplain maps, preparing FEMA Technical Support Data Notebooks and final DFIRM preparation. Ms. Bethune won and managed the contract with the Texas National Guard (TXNG) to conduct a stormwater survey, stream assessment, H&H analysis per the City of Austin Drainage Criteria Manual, and erosion evaluation for Camp Mabry in Austin, TX. The project entailed a stormwater inventory utilizing WISE open and closed system modules, Rosgen Level I stream assessment and erosion survey to aid the TXNG in its stormwater management plan initiatives. The project culminated with a final report documenting drainage patterns, erosion causes and solutions, and overall stormwater management prioritized recommendations (focusing on opportunities to provide water quality enhancements). Additionally, an updated geodatabase was prepared to aid the TXNG in maintaining its stormwater infrastructure.

The Beltway 8 Project: A Comprehensive Watershed-Wide Approach to No Adverse Impacts

Jennifer J. Walker, P.E., Dodson & Associates, Inc. Abstract

This presentation involves a roadway project with complex hydrology and hydraulics issues in Harris County, Texas, which has adopted a no adverse impacts approach to flood plain management. The 13-mile roadway project included eleven outfalls in two major watersheds. The majority of this project is located in the Greens Bayou watershed, which is a sensitive watershed that experiences out of bank flooding in the 50% event. A small portion of this project is located in the Carpenters Bayou watershed. Although revised studies of many of the receiving streams were completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project (TSARP), several of the streams were not studied. To maintain a consistent approach throughout the project, a no adverse impacts approach was used for all receiving streams. Furthermore, analyses were performed for the 50%, 10%, and 1% events for all systems regardless of capacity. For this roadway project, detention storage was required to avoid increasing peak flows and water surface elevations due to increased impervious cover. Flood plain storage mitigation was also required for several systems due to fill within the flood plain. One major system, Garners Bayou, also included a proposed bridge crossing of the Bayou. Because hydrologic and detention analyses were performed by multiple engineering consultants, project criteria were established early-on in the project to ensure consistency throughout. Because of the sensitivity of the Greens Bayou watershed to impacts, it was recognized that dynamic detention routing analyses that accounted for the effects of tailwater on the operation of the detention facilities would be required. As such, detention analyses were performed in HEC-RAS unsteady flow, PCSWMM, and XP-SWMM software programs. For all of these programs, stage hydrographs were used as the downstream boundary conditions. The individual detention routing analyses for the 11 outfalls were established to include the hydraulics of the receiving stream and to terminate at the confluence with the major stream (i.e., Greens Bayou and Carpenters Bayou). This approach was used to demonstrate no adverse impacts on all tributaries within the watersheds.

3

As a final check for adverse impacts, an overall watershed impacts analysis was performed on the entire Greens Bayou and Carpenters Bayou main stems. This type of downstream impacts analysis is often performed in the hydrologic (HEC-HMS) model as a check for increases in peak flows. Since preliminary checks indicated small increases in peak flows several miles downstream, a more detailed dynamic hydraulic routing approach was warranted. Therefore, HEC-RAS unsteady flow models were created for the main stems and used to check for downstream impacts to water surface elevations. This approach recognized that in relatively flat areas, such as Harris County, peak flows and water surface elevations are often not coincidental due to the effects of timing and backwater on the system. The more detailed dynamic hydraulic routing of hydrographs performed in the HEC-RAS unsteady flow models provided a more accurate assessment of the potential for adverse impacts than the traditional HEC-HMS hydrologic routing of hydrographs. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Jennifer J. Walker Jennifer J. Walker, P.E. is an Associate Vice President with Dodson & Associates, Inc., a civil engineering firm specializing in water resources. She has twelve years of experience in water resources planning and design. Her hydrology and hydraulics experience consists of major hydrologic/hydraulic studies; detention routing analyses; channel improvements projects; channel, and storm sewer designs; master drainage studies; drainage criteria manual development; watershed impact analyses; pump station analyses; and drainage study/plan review on behalf of Drainage District clients. Ms. Walker holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Kansas State University and a Master of Civil Engineering with a concentration in water resources from the University of Houston. She has prepared and presented hydrology and hydraulics papers at national and international conferences. Ms. Walker has also developed and presented numerous hydrology and hydraulics continuing education seminars. She currently teaches a two-day nationwide seminar, entitled Advanced Detention Routing: Improving the Operation and Effectiveness of Detention Facilities through the American Society of Civil Engineers.

4

A-2 New Perspectives Hurricanes and Recovery: Community Resilience Sponsored By: NOAA-Coastal Services Center Moderator: Todd Davison, NOAA Gulf Services Center

Consider `Community Resilience' in Floodplain Management

Shirley Laska, Ph.D., Univeristy of New Orleans, LA, Center for Hazards, Assessment, Response and Technology

Don't Let a Disaster Do You In!

Diana McClure, Institute for Business and Home Safety, "Open For Business"

Resilience and Disaster Management in the Indian Ocean: Putting the "Bounce" into Managing Disasters in Coastal Zone

Pam Rubinoff, Rhode Island Sea Grant

5

A-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Public Infrastructure Moderator: Delton Schwalls, PE, CFM, CDM The Levee Challenge: Kentucky's Pro-Active Approach to Public Safety, Education and Certification

Carey Johnson, Map Modernization Program Manager, Division of Water John Lewis, P.E., Environmental Engineer, Division of Water Laura Algeo, P.E., Project Manager, FEMA Region IV Michael Taylor, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, Watershed Concepts (RMC-IV) Abstract

The Commonwealth of Kentucky has over 25 communities that are affected by levee systems that are in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Levee Inspection Program. The total population in these communities is greater than 750,000; or approximately 20% of the total population of Kentucky. It is difficult to quantify the number of private residences and businesses that are protected by levees statewide, but in the City of Covington alone, nearly 300 residences and 50 businesses are afforded protection by levee systems. As Map Modernization efforts have progressed throughout the state, there have been varying efforts to provide certification of levee systems. For example, there was no re-certification of levees in communities that had DFIRMs go effective in 2004; however, since Hurricane Katrina's devastating impacts on New Orleans, the protection afforded by levees has been scrutinized by governments and private citizens alike. This increased awareness and lack of coordination in defining the provisions needed for levee certification has placed a considerable burden on the state's mapping partners. In addition, there are four USACE Districts within Kentucky which further complicates matters as policies tend to vary between Districts. As a FEMA Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP), the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) has taken an aggressive approach in order to work with all interested parties so that the most accurate flood hazard information is available on new DFIRMs. Flood hazard identification is a matter of public safety; DFIRMs produced by the Map Modernization effort should not give citizens a false sense of security where levee systems are faulty or produce an unnecessary burden when they are functioning as designed and constructed. In order to come to a conclusion that is amicable to all parties, KDOW has coordinated with the USACE, FEMA, RMC, and affected communities to develop a strategy to address levee issues. This strategy includes utilizing Procedure Memorandum 43 ­ Guidelines for Identifying Provisionally Accredited Levees in those communities where the USACE is unable or unwilling to provide certification and communities do not have the means to meet the certification requirements outlined in 44 CFR 65.10. Since the dissemination of Procedure Memorandum 43, KDOW has been in contact with the USACE, FEMA, and RMC to proceed with two countywide studies that have previously been put on hold due to levee concerns. The levees in both counties will be given Provisionally Accredited Levee status; meanwhile, the USACE, FEMA, RMC, KDOW and local communities will continue to develop consistent guidelines to address any issues that may arise. In conclusion, without a concerted effort from all those involved at the federal, state, and local levels to develop consistent guidelines for levee certification, mapping partners will be faced with similar hurdles well into the map maintenance phase of Map Modernization.

6

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Carey Johnson Carey began his career with the Division of Water in April of 2002. He started as the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator, working with local governments in dealing with floodplain management issues. In early 2004, Carey began managing the Kentucky Flood Map Modernization initiative in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Since then, the flood maps in 12 counties have been updated, and 48 counties are in varying stages of development. Prior to his employment at the Division of Water, Carey worked as a research assistant at the University of Kentucky, where he received a B.S. and M.S. in Soil Science, researching subsurface contaminant transport mechanisms. Carey is also a founding member and current Chairperson of the Kentucky Association of Mitigation Managers.

Partnership for Public Infrastructure Mitigation

Alisa M. Sauvageot, CFM, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Abstract

When a Federal Disaster is declared, local communities rely heavily on FEMA funding to rebuild the roads, bridges and other necessary infrastructure to get the community back on track. The eligible categories for these funds can be limited, making it economical for communities to partner with other agencies for these repairs. Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) has programs similar to FEMA's Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program. Both provide federal funding to states and local communities to rebuild highways and bridges that have suffered serious damage as a result of natural disasters. While PA monies include certain non-profit organizations, FHWA programs include tribes and federal land management agencies. This presentation will provide an overview of FHWA's Emergency Relief Program (ER) and the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) Program. These programs can compliment FEMA's PA monies, while mitigating future losses to the structures. The requirements for the funds are different form traditional FEMA programs, which can slow the process for achieving the necessary repairs. By discussing the general requirements of the FHWA programs, state and local officials can learn the necessary steps to supplement FEMA disaster programs to rebuild better "disaster resistant" infrastructure. As with most Federal grant programs, mitigation to a damaged structure must be cost effective and is considered on a case-by-case basis. If the community knows the tools and approach to take when a transportation component is damaged during flooding, they will be able to demonstrate the cost effectiveness for mitigating the structure. There are a many projects throughout the US which demonstrate flood loss mitigation using FHWA funding from these programs. Each project represents community-driven efforts to rebuild better community links through partnering. This presentation will reveal examples of infrastructure projects in different stages of development, by demonstrating successes and lessons learned. ASFPM members will learn the benefits of partnering with agencies outside of FEMA to accomplish community goals for floodplain management. By incorporating FHWA Programs into Disaster Mitigation

7

Plans and knowing how to coordinate these efforts, communities can "chart their course" to rebuild better transportation structures after a disaster. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Alisa M. Sauvageot Alisa M. Sauvageot, CFM, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. ­ Alisa is currently a water resources project manager in Phoenix AZ. She supports communities throughout Region IX with NFIP regulations, compliance and mapping status associated with Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM). Prior to her current position, Alisa was an Environmental Planner for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), assisting Arizona communities with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to obtain federal funding. In addition, she was the liaison between ADOT and Arizona local Floodplain Managers on floodplain impacts for state and federal highway projects. She has worked as the Wyoming NFIP Coordinator and served on the ASFPM Board as the Region VIII member and is a current board member for the Arizona Floodplain Management Association. She became a Certified Floodplain Manager in 1999, has a Bachelors Degree from NC State University in Environmental Design of Architecture and has completed graduate work at the University of Wyoming in Recreation Planning and Federal Land Administration.

June 2006 Pennsylvania Flood Emergency Impact on PennDOT Structures ­ Response and Recovery

Donna M. Newell, P.E., CFM, NTM Engineering, Inc. Bryan J. Spangler, P.E., Assistant Chief Bridge Engineer, PennDOT-Bureau of Design Rachel L. Tereska, P.E. Jeffery S. MacKay, P.E. Abstract

A combination of storm systems moved through Pennsylvania during the last week of June 2006, depositing 8 to 15 inches of rain at some locations. The hydrologic conditions were already saturated from earlier rain events, and the resultant runoff caused extensive flooding of many streams and river flooding at many locations. The highest recurrence-interval flooding was mostly confined to the headwater areas of tributaries to the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers. The flooding that occurred in Northeastern Pennsylvania caused a devastating amount of damage in parts of Columbia, Luzerne, Monroe, Lackawanna, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Wayne, and Carbon Counties. Over 200,000 residents in northeastern Pennsylvania were evacuated due to the rising floodwaters. Thousands of homes and businesses were severely damaged or destroyed, hundreds of miles of roadways were impacted, and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage were incurred. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) had 27 structures that failed or had to be closed due to safety issues. Miles of stream channels experienced significant sedimentation and erosion from the flooding at additional PennDOT structures. The post-flood evaluation and mitigation coordination between PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and FEMA is discussed. Site evaluations for damage assessment and scoping for replacement structures was conducted with a goal to get all PennDOT impacted structures under contract for replacement by September 1, 2006.

8

A detailed documentation of the impact of the storm event, the coordination of the various agencies for the design and permitting process to expedite the bid letting for the bridge projects, and the final outcome to reopen the PennDOT structures is provided. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Donna M. Newell Ms. Newell has a strong background in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydrology and hydraulics. Ms. Newell is a Certified Floodplain Manager and runs the water resources group at Erdman Anthony Associates. Her experience includes design of hydraulic structures, hydrologic/hydraulic analysis and modeling, bridge scour analysis, safe yield investigations, and development of in-house computer programs for water resource engineering applications. As part of her Master's research, Ms. Newell worked with PennDOT researching abutment scour predication methods applicable for streams in Pennsylvania. Along with her consulting engineering experience, Ms. Newell has served as an Adjunct Professor with the Pennsylvania State University, where she has taught a graduate level open channel hydraulics course and the H&H portion of the PE review course. She is also developing and teaching various seminars on water resources topics for PennDOT's Bureau of Design. Ms. Newell has recently worked extensively with PennDOT's Bureau of Design as a water resources consultant for state H&H policies and procedures.

9

A-4 Going Coastal: Using Technology to Assess Coastal Risk (I) Moderator: Mark Mauriello, New Jersey DEP Primary Frontal Dune Delineation for Velocity Zone Mapping In Massachusetts

Rebecca Haney, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Daniel Sampson, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Abstract

The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Cooperating Technical Partners Initiative to develop a defensible methodology for delineation of the landward toe of primary frontal dunes and to redelineate Vor Velocity zone floodplain boundaries for four coastal communities in northern Massachusetts. Most V zone boundaries shown on existing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for this region are outdated and in need of revision due to changes in local geomorphology and changes to the FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program regulation V zone definition. V zones are now defined by FEMA to include, at a minimum, primary frontal dunes (PFD). As such, the boundary of the V zone is, at a minimum, the landward "toe" of the PFD line that is defined by FEMA as "...a point where there is a distinct change from a relatively steep slope to a relatively mild slope." The inherent flexibility in this definition has resulted in inconsistent delineations. Since the location of the V zone has significant impacts on insurance rates and may restrict development, the delineation process may be controversial with homeowners and municipalities. Consequently, CZM has developed an approach to PFD delineation that adheres to, yet clarifies the application of the FEMA PFD definition. This methodology, based on geologic principles, utilizes both quantitative and qualitative techniques resulting in a defensible, and repeatable delineation. To accomplish this, CZM analyzed freely available National and Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) data in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to make a first cut quantitative delineation. Data from a land survey was used to ensure that the LIDAR data met FEMA accuracy standards. Once validated, we set shore parallel transects and extracted dune elevation profile data that were subsequently analyzed to determine second derivative slope; this metric and others were used to produce a series of ranked preliminary delineations for each transect. These preliminary delineation points were ground truthed to ensure that they represented "a distinct change from a relatively steep slope to a relatively mild slope" in the context of the larger landform. Once a series of delineation points were selected, they were examined in relation to one another and to the overall landform; outliers were identified and reassessed. A final check of the connected delineation was made by selecting a statistically valid number of ground control points and comparing the derived dune "toe" to that of the "toe" as identified by coastal geologists. After a detailed review of the methodology by a panel of coastal geologists, FEMA Region I, FEMA Headquarters and their technical consultants, FEMA has approved this methodology for use in northeastern Massachusetts and is considering it for national use.

10

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Rebecca Haney Rebecca Haney: Coastal Geologist. Coordinates coastal hazards research and policy development; provides technical assistance to state, federal and local officials, non-profit organizations, as well as the general public on issues related to shoreline change, flooding, storm damage prevention, resource delineation, physical coastal processes, and "soft" alternatives for reducing erosion; conducts educational workshops and field trips; conducts multi-disciplinary review of proposed projects in the coastal zone and provides written comments to local, state, and federal agencies; assists communities, state and federal agencies and non-profit organizations in the preparation of barrier beach management plans; assists in the planning and design process for dredging projects with beach nourishment; investigates effectiveness of alternative technologies for erosion control and determine potential applications for other sites. Joined MCZM in October 1993. M.S., Geology, University of South Florida B.A., Geology, Smith College, Northampton, MA. American Maritime Studies Program, Williams-Mystic Program, Mystic, CT. Past Research Assistant/Project Manager, University of South Florida.

HURREVAC- New Applications for Coastal and Inland Flood Plain Managers

Karen S. Townsend, Sea Island Software John Townsend, President, Sea Island Software William Massey, Director, Hurricane and Emergency Management Programs, Dewberry Abstract

BACKGROUND: For almost 20 years, the HURREVAC software program has been providing real-time National Weather Service hurricane and other weather data to government emergency managers and decision making officials in the coastal areas of the United States and its territories. Developed by Sea Island Software, located in Charleston, SC, the initial focus of the software was for hurricane tracking and decision making when a hurricane or tropical storm threatened a coastal location. This software program has been provided as a free service to official government users by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as a product of FEMA's National Hurricane Program. HURREVAC incorporates the technical data developed when a Hurricane Evacuation Study (HES) is conducted for a State or regional area by FEMA and the Corps. National Hurricane Center advisories are downloaded in real time from the National Weather Service and this information is merged with and compared to the evacuation clearance times and other relevant data developed during the course of the HES. HURREVAC graphically displays the official NHC forecasted track, wind fields, NOAA coastal tide gages, storm surge maps and many other storm related features. FEMA, other Federal agencies and the State and local Emergency Management Community utilizes this software when storms threaten to alert and prepare citizens in the path of the storm and assist in decision making. Another basic daily use of the software by emergency managers is to utilize the features in HURREVAC to anticipate hazardous weather effects by tracking the rainfall QPF forecast, river gage forecast and national flood forecast as they relate to their area of concern. At present, most users are located in coastal locations. The purpose of this presentation is to present the features available for both coastal and inland users and locations. INLAND FEATURES: HURREVAC currently displays real-time NWS river gage hydrographs for more that 900 locations in the coastal States from Maine to Texas. Associated with many of these gage locations are

11

thumbnail maps showing the FEMA 100 year floodplain areas. In addition, the software displays the 24, 48, and 72 hour rainfall forecast from the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC) and the National River Flood Outlook from the NWS. SUMMARY: Relevance to the conference issue- Track-2- As more inland (freshwater flood) modules are developed and included in the HURREVAC Software, additional flood plain managers in coastal and inland locations should avail themselves of the software in order to track weather systems and anticipate problems prior to their affects in the community. River gages in inland States could be added to provide this very important data to a wider audience. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Townsend John Townsend is a meteorologist (FSU 1964) with 35 years experience in the U.S. Air Force and the NWS. Since retirement in 1997 he has been president of Sea Island Software, the contract programmers for the FEMA / USACE Hurrevac program. He is a recipient of the National Hurricane Conference's Neil Frank award (2004) and lives in the Charleston (SC) area.

Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System: Providing Data and Products for Users of the Coastal Environment

Ann E. Jochens, Ph.D., J.D., Research Scientist, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University Abstract

The Gulf of Mexico is of strategic importance for recreation, natural resources, commerce, transportation, human population development, homeland security, and military operations of the United States. To address associated regional issues, a sustained coastal ocean observing system extending from the heads of estuaries to the limits of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone is being developed as part of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System. This regional system is called the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS). It is a System of systems formed from the many observing elements supported variously by state and federal government, private, and academic entities. GCOOS development is governed through the GCOOS Regional Association (GCOOS-RA), which was formed by interested stakeholders in January 2005 under the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement (http://www.gcoos.org). Development of GCOOS began in October 2000 with open sharing of non-priority, non-commercial data and products from the existing observing elements of many interested stakeholders. A system for acquisition, quality control, dissemination, and archive of near-real time data also was developed through the NOAA National Data Buoy Center. This sharing opens opportunities for improved understanding of the coastal ecosystem and development of new analysis tools and products for use by managers, scientists, industry, and others. Development of GCOOS continues through integration of existing subsystems, identification of potential user requirements, enhancements to meet user needs for observations and products, and education and outreach. Future funding may allow the deployment of new observing system sub-elements. To identify priorities for the Gulf of Mexico stakeholders, the GCOOS-RA is conducting a series of workshops focused on specific stakeholder sectors. These workshops are aimed at identifying prioritized observations and products, pilot projects needed to obtain the highest priorities, and economic benefits. Such workshops have been held for the oil and gas and related sectors and for the state and federal managers needing information regarding harmful algal blooms.

12

The Gulf coast is home to approximately one-sixth of the U.S. population, and issues of coastal inundation and storm surge are of paramount importance to the well-being of those residents. So, the GCOOS-RA cosponsored a storm surge and inundation workshop in January 2007 to obtain the priorities of emergency managers and others that deal with coastal inundation and storm surge matters. Results from this workshop will be presented.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Ann Jochens Dr. Ann Jochens is a Research Scientist in the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University and is the GCOOS Regional Coordinator. She has 25 years of experience in environmental policy and science, including 15 years of study of the physical oceanography of the Gulf of Mexico. Currently she is active in the development of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Ocean Observing System Regional Association (GCOOSRA) that is part of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System. She has a B.S. in Mathematics and Statistics with Honor from Southern Methodist University (1974), a Doctor of Jurisprudence with background specialty in Ocean Law from the University of Oregon (1977), and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Oceanography from Texas A&M University (1989; 1997).

13

A-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Levees ­ Policy, Analysis And Accreditation Sponsored By: PBS & J Moderator: Michael DePue, PE, CFM, D.WRE, PBS&J Alternatives for Increasing Flood Insurance Participation for Communities Protected by Levees

Ricardo Pineda, NFIP State Coordinator, California Department of Water Resources Maria Lorenzo Lee, California Department of Water Resources Jen Marcy, PBS & J Ed Thomas, Esq., Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Jennifer Duffy, P.E., PBS & J Abstract

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many states and localities are questioning whether the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement should extend to homeowners and business owners whose property is on the protected side of a levee system. Because almost one-third of all flood insurance claims are for properties outside the Special Flood Hazard Area (in the 0.2-percent-annual-chance or 500-year floodplain and beyond), it is becoming increasingly apparent that the 1-percent-annual-chance flood may not be an adequate standard by which to pursue mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements. However, it is not anticipated that this standard will be revised on a National level in the foreseeable future. Along with mitigation measures such as floodplain management, updated mapping, and maintenance and repair of aging levees, flood insurance is a necessary precaution against potential flood damages for structures behind levees. Post-flood evidence in many areas of the country suggests that only 20 to 30 percent of the damaged homes were insured for flood. The prospect of broader insurance coverage for flood risk may provide one way to minimize the burden to property owners as well as State's liability and financial exposure. The insurance industry estimates that 50 percent of the homes in California have interest-only mortgages, thus the lenders may own flood damaged property outright if the property has no flood insurance coverage and owners forfeit the property which is surety for the loan. Therefore, it is in the finance industry's best interest, also, to broaden flood insurance coverage throughout the State. In late 2005, the California Department of Water Resources tasked PBS&J with preparing a Draft White Paper dissertation regarding alternatives for increasing flood insurance participation in communities that are protected by levees and floodwalls in California. This presentation will review several options discussed in this paper.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Ricardo S. Pineda Ricardo S. Pineda, P.E., CFM is Chief of the Floodplain Management Branch of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and is the State's National Flood Insurance Program coordinator. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of California and holds a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering. Pineda has more than 26 years of experience as a Civil Engineer with DWR and has been

14

chief of its Floodplain Management Branch for six years. He has served on the Board of Directors for the Association of State Floodplain Managers and various joint Flood Risk Management committees.

FEMA Levee Analysis Requirements for Floodplain Mapping

David T. Williams, Ph.D., PE, PH, D.WRE, F.ASCE, Director, WaterResources, PBS&J Michael DePue, P.E., CFM, D.WRE, Senior Program Manager, PBS & J Abstract

This paper describes the FEMA levee analysis process and the implications of FEMA Procedure Memorandums 34 and 43. The critical features of the analysis will be described, including hydrology and hydraulics, levee failure analyses, structural integrity, geotechnical stability, and operations and maintenance. Each aspect will be considered in light of the accreditation requirements. Case studies will be offered illustrating the various aspects of the analysis. Where appropriate, flow charts will be presented that shows the overall procedures and the decision making process. Respectively, National Technical Director, Water Resources, PBS&J, 9275 Skypark Ct., Suite 200, San Diego, CA, 92123 and Senior Program Manager, PBS&J, 10 East Doty Street, Madison, WI, 53711

1,2

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David T. Williams Dr. Williams, a Professional hydrologist and a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC), has more than 30 years of professional experience as a research hydraulic engineer with the USACE at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi, both the Nashville and Baltimore Districts, the Hydrologic Engineering Center in Davis, California, and as president of WEST Consultants. He is an instructor for ASCE for computer training workshops on using HEC-2, HEC-RAS, HEC-HMS and HEC-6. Other short courses taught by David are channel bed scour for toe protection design, sediment transport and stream bank protection. David has been project manager or principal-incharge of numerous FEMA floodplain delineation studies for FEMA, public agencies, and private clients. He is currently PBS&J's National Technical Director for Water Resources.

The Levee Accreditation Process in Indianapolis

Michael DePue, P.E., CFM, D.WRE, Senior Program Manager, PBS & J Donna Price, CFM, Floodplain Administrator, City of Indianapolis Mary Jo Mullen, P.E., CFM, Regional Engineer, PBS & J Abstract

This paper describes the levee accreditation process in Indianapolis under FEMA Procedure Memos 34 and 43. The evolution of the process is described as well as the impacts and effectiveness of various steps. The

15

paper will be beneficial to others than must go through the levee accreditation process as it describes the conditions at the start of the project, issues encountered, solutions, timeframes, and expected outcomes.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY:

Michael DePue Mr. DePue is the operations manager for PBS&J's Floodplain Hazards Management Group. Mr. DePue received an M.S. in Hydrosystems Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Clemson University, and has been with PBS&J since 1996. His background includes one- and two-dimensional modeling for riverine and coastal flood and scour studies, as well as extensive experience in the design of stormwater systems for highway and land development projects. Mr. DePue's experience includes management of countywide Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) production, review of Letters of Map Change, levee database development, and flood mapping operational and business planning. He developed and implemented multi-day training courses on GIS-based DFIRM development as well as hydrology and hydraulics for FEMA flood studies. Mr. DePue is author or coauthor of fourteen papers on flood modeling and has taught several dozen courses and seminars on FEMA flood mapping. He is a registered professional engineer in twelve states and a Certified Floodplain Manager as well as a Diplomate, Water Resources Engineer (D.WRE).

16

A-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology: GIS/Modeling Moderator: Sarah Widing, ENSR GIS Based Two-Dimensional Flood Modeling

Reinaldo Garcia, Ph.D., Senior Hydraulic Programmer, FLO-2D Software, Inc. Juan Jose Rodriguez, Professor, Universidad Central de Venezuela Jim O'Brien, President, FLO-2D Software, Inc. Abstract

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) have become essential tools in most applications in environmental sciences and engineering. GIS applications are frequently used to create hazard maps employing simple models or procedures. While most flood models available today provide efficient numerical schemes to simulate flooding, considerable time is required to prepare and input data, correct errors, run the program, calibrate the models and generate flood and hazard maps. FLO-2D is finite-difference model to simulate flooding in urban or unconfined regions that is tightly integrated with GIS. The model is encapsulated in a GIS based user interface which functions as a shell to communicate with the user, simplifying the application of the model. The system provides pre-processing capabilities that incorporate ESRI-GIS components to facilitate numerical grid generation, interpolate DTM and DEM elevation data to grid, interactively create and edit channel segments, streets, levees and buildings and other grid element attributes, import ESRI shape file format data such as land use, soil types, and Manning roughness coefficients, import multiple geo-referenced aerial photos, compute infiltration parameters based on shape file land use and soil type maps, import HEC-RAS cross section data, etc. The FLO-2D flood modeling system has evolved to where floods can now be animated during the computer simulation with aerial photography in the background. The system also has extensive postprocessing capabilities to visualize simulation results including interactive generation of contour and shaded contour plots for ground surface elevation, maximum water surface elevation, maximum and final flow depth, floodplain maximum and final velocity, channel maximum flow depth and velocities, sediment scour and deposition depths, duration of inundation, impact force, velocity vectors, depths versus time or velocity versus time plots, etc. In addition to these results, flood damage costs can be assessed and automated hazard maps based on as function of flood frequency and intensity can be generated. Several examples are shown to display the features of the flood modeling system. The objective of GIS integrated models is to implement as much detail into flood models as possible using graphical interfaces. This eliminates data input errors, enables seamless interpolation of spatially variable parameters and facilitates the modeler's understanding of the physical system. GIS integrated models like FLO-2D can boost productivity of engineering firms performing flood hazard studies and mitigation analyses. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Reinaldo Garcia Reinaldo is the co-designer and developer of the Grid Developer System (GDS) and the Mapper processor program for the FLO-2D model. He has also developed 2D and 3D free surface flow models, and detailed pollutants and sediment transport models. In 1996 he lead the development of HydroTrack and OilTrack, two commercial models to simulate 2D free surface hydrodynamics, pollutant transport and oil spills. He was the project manager to develop flood hazard maps using FLO-2D on more than 20 alluvial fans in Northern Venezuela that were impacted by severe mud and debris flows in December 1999. Reinaldo was a professor at the University of Central Venezuela for 25 years where he has taught computational fluid dynamics, finite element method in hydraulics and numerical methods. He earned a Master degree from the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada and a Ph.D. from the University of Central Venezuela. He is

17

now Senior Research Scientist at Applied Research Center of Florida International University, Miami. He has published numerous articles in journals, books and conference proceedings on sediment transport modeling, free surface flow models, finite element computation, and oil spills.

Benefits of GIS Customization in Floodplain Mapping

David Rubenstein, CFM, Environmental Designer, URS Corporation Rich Zwaap, GIS Developer, URS Corporation Abstract

Background When rules were introduced that required data from FIRM studies to be submitted in a GIS format, CADbased approaches to floodplain mapping were instantly made far less efficient. To regain this efficiency, the implementation of start-to-finish GIS approaches to floodplain mapping were required. But transitioning from a CAD-based approach to a GIS-based approach introduces significant challenges, as the two technologies are fundamentally different. URS has found that the difficulties of this transition can be minimized by leveraging the customizability of GIS software to construct a GIS-based approach that is easy to master. Furthermore, the implementation of a floodplain mapping process that relies on custom GIS tools has made URS' floodplain mapping operations substantially more efficient than ever before. URS has learned first-hand that simply modifying CAD-based floodplain mapping processes to accommodate FEMA's DFIRM requirements is cumbersome and error prone. CAD files that are used to produce hardcopy FIRMs must be converted to GIS files for database submittal. This process poses several problems that make it very time consuming. A few common problems are: the actual CAD to GIS file conversion introduces projection and data replication errors; the CAD files typically contain hundreds of small geometric and topological errors that must be remedied in the GIS environment; and the resulting GIS files need to be manually attributed. Furthermore, data must be manually created for FEMA-required GIS files that are not part of the map production process (e.g. label points, leader lines, data tables, etc). Start-to-finish GIS approaches to floodplain mapping, while better than their CAD-based counterparts, still pose significant challenges. Perhaps the most substantial of these is overcoming the differences between CAD and GIS. Without floodplain mapping personnel that are knowledgeable about GIS theory and thoroughly proficient with GIS software packages, there remains the likelihood that attribution, geometric, and topological errors will be introduced in the floodplain mapping process. URS has found that these problems are best addressed by leveraging the customization capabilities of current GIS software packages. By reformulating our floodplain mapping process based on custom GIS tools, we have successfully migrated the entire process to a GIS environment. Since functionalities that ensure proper attribution, topology, and feature geometry have been made inherent in our custom tools, the potential for error has been vastly reduced. And because these tools have been made easy to use, existing floodplain mapping personnel, who previously had no experience in a GIS environment, have been able to master the new process in a surprisingly short amount of time. Beyond that, the largely automated nature of these tools have made feature creation and attribution, annotation, ancillary data creation (e.g. label points), and the production of hard copy and data deliverables many times faster than with previous methods. The end result for URS is a floodplain mapping process that is efficient, accurate, and easy to master.

18

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Rubenstein David Rubenstein is a certified floodplain manager and environmental designer who has been with URS for more than five years. For the last three years, he has been involved with the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program. This involvement has primarily included DFIRM development and QA/QC, and has led him to become the Mapping Modernization lead for URS' water resources group in Gaithersburg, MD. As the lead representative for the test users of URS' custom floodplain mapping tools, his feedback has played a central role in the development of these tools.

Dynamically Integrating Hydrodrynamic Models to Improve Flood Map Reliability In Urban Areas and Improve Water Management

Richard A. Crowder, Ph.D., Associate Director, Halcrow Group Ltd. Elliot Gill, Associate Director, Halcrow Group Ltd. Abstract

For almost all types of flooding projects someone somewhere has developed a modeling method and tool that can provide us with an answer to our questions. However, this may only be part of the answer, since the tools used have historically considered only part of the "flooding problem". This is due to the way problems have often been solved in isolation, and the barriers which have led to this include legislative drivers, knowledge management, and investment in and approach to research, technical capability, data availability, computing power and financial and time constraints. Taking an appropriately joined-up approach potentially provides integrated watershed benefits for urban areas. It not only provides a better understanding of river-basin processes but also enables the management of flood risk by all stakeholders and will lead to improved water quality and water resources management and improved asset performance. We will present an overview of the latest methods and tools for undertaking Integrated Rural & Urban Modeling and details on some of the latest research and development work being undertaken across the world in this rapidly developing technological area. It is demonstrated how well established and proven 1D hydrodynamic models of the river and sewer/culvert surface water network can be dynamically linked with a 2-D hydrodynamic model of the surface flow. Both custom (software specific) linking and "OpenMI" standard linking of models are explored with specific strengths and weaknesses identified. Outputs from "Integrated Rural and Urban Modeling" studies are presented showing how detailed and improved flood maps can be developed for fluvial, sewer and pluvial flooding in urban areas. We also look at how integrated flood modeling methods are being developed in the UK integrated urban flooding pilot studies. We show how integrated modeling can be used to understand flood risk and develop value driven flood risk management approaches.

19

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Richard Crowder Richard Crowder is an Associate Director within the Halcrow Group, a 6000 strong international engineering and planning consultancy with 10 offices in the USA. He is Halcrow's Framework Manager for the Strategic Flood Risk Management Framework with the UK Environment Agency covering flood risk mapping and strategic flood risk planning. He is an expert in river and coastal hydraulics and water quality modeling, computational hydraulics (1D, 2D & 3D), software development and software benchmarking. He is experienced in watershed flood studies flood risk studies (PPG25), flood mapping and flood management studies flood forecasting and flood warning, hydrological analysis, sedimentation, benchmarking of hydraulic modelling software, model auditing, water resource studies and software engineering. He has extensive experience in coastal modelling and impact assessment studies. Experienced in the application of GIS tools/software on watershed/river studies and the development of GIS applications, database applications, data processing and programming applications.

20

A-7 Floodplain Mapping: Application ­ Floodplain Mapping ­ Mitigation Applications Moderator: Sheila Norlin, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Applying Floodplain Mapping Technology for Minimizing Repetitive Loss Properties

ChiChung Chang, Ph.D. CFM, Project Director, URS Corporation Mark Price, Senior Specialist, FEMA Region VI Ross Richardson CFM, Section Chief, FEMA Region VI Abstract

We face the same threats from floods today as we did before. Flood hazard conditions are dynamic. However, with modern mapping technology, such as LiDAR, digital FIRM and satellite imagery, the flood risk as a result of recent development and/or natural changes in the environment can be appropriately identified and assessed. The state-of-the-art technology is able to integrate layers of information, such as land use and flood depths using the power of GIS, it is possible to proactively mitigate the risks posed by floods and, thereby, minimize repeated damages to properties. A FEMA Region VI and URS project team led this pioneering effort to help the states of Louisiana and Texas as well as local jurisdictions to manage repetitive loss properties effectively. The FEMA/URS project team gathered LiDAR and other GIS data from the various local jurisdictions in the states of Texas and Louisiana. All the data "layers" were assembled into a single GIS map for each of the states. This map was then overlayed with structural, financial, previous claims, and other information collected by the project team for the repetitive properties of interest. Using this superset map, flood depth was generated for all properties (calculated using BFE and LiDAR elevation for each property). This information was then extracted into the analysis process tool. Using this analysis tool, each property portfolio was reviewed and the most appropriate two mitigation alternatives were selected as recommendations. The analysis tool was also linked to the superset map. In cases where a cluster of properties exist, community wide alternatives were recommended. Using the power of GIS and database technologies, it was quick to assembly data from multiple sources and make recommendations, based on FEMA guidelines and other professional recommendations, for each property. Traditionally, efforts would be focused on manual review of data. Using these advanced techniques, efforts were focused on selecting the best mitigation alternatives for both the property owner and local jurisdictions.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: ChiChung Chang ChiChung Chang, PhD CFM, Dr. Chang is a senior manager and a Project Director of URS Corp. (URS) Houston Office. He has a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Rice University. Dr. Chang has over 25 years of experience managing and conducting engineering, environmental, and planning projects for various state and federal agencies as well as industrial and municipal clients. He is an expert on issues based on Stafford Act, 44 CFR, and FEMA policies and guidelines. He has extensive knowledge of the issues and the hands-on experience on floodplain management, urban flood assessment, damage recovery and facility management for disaster mitigation and prevention. He also provided technical consulting and training on floodplain management for disaster assistance staff from FEMA and State of Texas. In the past

21

five years, he has worked with the key officers from FEMA, States and the local communities on Hazard Mitigation Program and Repetitive Loss Property Reduction Program under HMGP, PDM, FMA, and NFIP. Dr. Chang serves on the Advisory Board for the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at Rice University. He is a member of the Board of Directors to American Chinese Association of Professionals. He also serves on the Committee of Water Resources Management Institute of American Society of Civil Engineers. He has also taught seminars on floodplain management, environmental management and permitting for private industry and local governments.

Shifting the Floodplain Paradign

John E. Hays, Floodplain Coordinator, Santa Cruz County Flood Control District Abstract

Floodplain management focuses on reducing and preventing damages from flooding sources. However, the current paradigm, especially along riverine systems, is to provide this protection within the 100-year floodplain. This is a floodplain that occupies that portion of the geologic floodplain that will be inundated by flows from an event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. However, the delineation of this floodplain relies upon the assumption that the channel and floodplain geometries and dynamics remain constant over a period of time. The problem is that it is more common for flood events, even minor ones, to result in alterations in channel and floodplain geometries and dynamics which result in changes to the mapped floodplains. These alterations can include the degradation or aggradation and/or migration of the channel. Some times, even minor changes can have radical effects on how a flood event will affect a given area. Conversely, the geologic floodplain represents the area adjacent to a channel where the flow of water has been active over the past several thousand years. In mature riverine systems, the geologic floodplain is typically wider than the 100-year floodplain, while in younger riverine systems the two can be coincidental. This discrepancy in floodplain limits typically results in a false sense of security in area residents who mistakenly believe that because they are not located in the federally mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas there is no risk for flooding on their property. However, as is all too common, events larger than the currently calculated 100-year flood can and often do occur and predictions of what areas will be inundated by a specific size flood miss the mark due to changes since the original study. In addition, it is not unheard of for a flood event to be demoted from the status of a 100-year flood event a couple of months to years after it occurs based on new hydrology resulting from the data collected from said flood event. Therefore, it is necessary to question whether or not the paradigm of the 100-year flood event is one that should be continued, or abandoned. Do we continue to provide mapping and protection for areas within the 100-year floodplain, or do we shift our paradigm to one where we map the entire floodprone area associated with any watershed? Perhaps it is time to consider mapping and regulating the geologic floodplain and creation of zones of risk from low risk (the geologic floodplain boundaries) to severe risk (the floodway at a six inch rise) instead of limiting our vision to one specific event.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Hays John Hays is currently the Floodplain Coordinator for Santa Cruz County, Arizona. His duties include updating the Santa Cruz County Floodplain Ordinance, enforcement of the Santa Cruz County Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Ordinance, investigation of drainage complaints and flood events, perform site visits at the request of the public for site specific information, document violations and damages, prepare written reports of findings, managing recovery/mitigation projects, creation and

22

implementation of a Floodplain Use Permit System, reviewing hydrologic and hydraulic studies for private and public projects, reviewing plats and improvement plan for proposed subdivisions and commercial developments, identify floodplain status at the request of individuals in both the public and private sectors, implementation of the Santa Cruz County Flood Volunteer Rain Gauge System, operation of Santa Cruz County Precipitation and Stream Gauge System, management of disaster recovery and mitigation projects, and preparing and presenting monthly reports to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. Raised in Texas and Arizona, John holds degrees in Geology and Planetary Geology from Northern Arizona University and Brown University, respectively, and is married with two children. Besides teaching geology at the Nogales Campus of Cochise College, John is also the Cub Master for Cub Scout Pack 508, and serves on the IBWC Southeastern Arizona Citizens Forum (current member, former Co-Chair), Arizona State Park Natural Area Advisory Council (current member, former Vice Chair and Chair), Arizona Floodplain Management Association Board of Directors (former Southern Region Representative, past Associate Member at Large), and the Coronado RC&D Council (current President).

Watershed Parameter and Model Maintenance Implementation in the Southwest Florida Water Management District

Stephanie Dunham, P.E., Project Manager, SW Florida Water Management District Gordon McClung, P.E., Eng. Sect. Manager, SWt Florida Water Management District David Jones, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Dewberry Abstract

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) oversees water management for a 10,000square mile area, encompassing all or part of 16 counties, which includes some of fastest growing regions in Florida. As a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP), the SWFWMD is working with counties and municipal governments in their District as they go through their mapping study lifecycle. Understanding that the existing flood maps and data are old and outdated, SWFWMD recognized that significant changes in the flood maps would occur throughout the majority of the counties as floodplains were more clearly delineated. Consequently, it would be important to pro-actively communicate these changes to the property owners, stakeholders and the media, as well as internal staff. In response to this, SWFWMD put together and implemented a comprehensive outreach plan to help the counties -like Hernando County and Pasco County- keep their local and regional stakeholders informed as the studies are performed; inform the media and public around the release of the preliminary maps; and perform post-preliminary outreach activities. This presentation will review the steps SWFWMD took to develop the outreach plan, how they helped get local stakeholders involved and lessons learned. Also, examples of outreach materials that were created and used will be presented. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Stephanie Y. Dunham Stephanie Y. Dunham, P.E., Engineering Section, Resource Management Department, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) Education: Texas A&M University, 1991-1996, B.S.C.E. University of Texas at Austin, 1996-1998, M.S.C.E., Field of concentration: geotechnical and environmental engineering

23

Employment: Southwest Florida Water Management District. February 2003 - present. Brooksville, Florida. Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc. July 1998-September 2002. San Antonio, Texas. Professional and Technical Affiliations: Florida Floodplain Managers Association, 2004 - present As a Senior Professional Engineer in the Resource Management Department, Stephanie works to implement projects through the District's Watershed Management Program (WMP). Elements of the Program include Topographic Information, Watershed Evaluation, Watershed Management Plan, Implementation of Best Management Practices, and Maintenance of Watershed Parameters and Models. The WMP provides a method to evaluate the capacity of a watershed to protect, enhance, and restore water quality and natural systems, while achieving flood protection. Typically, these projects are performed in cooperation with local governments. Currently, she is managing projects implementing one or more elements of the Watershed Management Program for several watersheds ranging in size from 20 to 600 square miles; Map Modernization planning and coordination with other District staff, FEMA, other Florida water management districts, and local governments; a Mapping Activity Statement for Sarasota County; and implementation of the District's strategy for Maintenance of Watershed Parameters and Models.

24

A-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: H & H Modeling Moderator: Dick Wild, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Two-Dimensional Flow Modeling for a Flood Insurance Study in Montana

Katherine J. Chase, P.E., Hydrologist, USGS Water Resources Division John Liou, Regional Hydrologist, FEMA Region VIII Abstract

A two-dimensional flow model was used by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to refine previous estimates of the Tenmile Creek flood-plain boundaries in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. Tenmile Creek, which has a perched channel with a relatively small capacity, has overflowed its banks and flooded parts of the Helena Valley at least 3 times in the past 30 years. Historically, floods have inundated agricultural and suburban areas as much as about 2.5 miles north of the channel. Previous estimates of the extents of this valley flooding were developed using aerial photography of historic floods. However, flow rates, depths, and velocities ­ all of which are important data for flood-plain management ­ have not been available. The Surface-Water Modeling System (SMS)1 and the Two-Dimensional Depth-Averaged Flow and Sediment Transport Model (FST2DH)1 were used to simulate the two-dimensional flow patterns for the overflow area north of the Tenmile Creek main channel. The graphics-based SMS computer program manages input and output data for the surface-water model. FST2DH is a computer program that utilizes the finite-element method to simulate two-dimensional flow in rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters. The combined use of the SMS and FST2DH for two-dimensional flow analysis provided estimates of flow rates, depths, and velocities for Tenmile Creek overflow flooding across the Helena Valley. ____________________________________ 1 Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Y.D. Liou, Ph.D. P.E. CFM John Liou graduated from Colorado State University's Civil Engineering Department. He received a Master Degree of Soil Mechanics in 1967 and a Ph.D. in River Hydraulics in 1970. Dr. Liou worked for several large consulting engineering companies in Denver, Colorado as a senior Water Resource Engineer from 1970 to 1977. In 1977, he joined the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region VIII as Regional Engineer. His responsibilities include the Flood Mitigation Study and Floodplain Management and Mitigation Program. He is the lead engineer for FEMA's Multi-hazards Map Modernization Program for U.S. Western six-states. He supervised the development of several hundred Floodplain studies and worked with six-states Local, and State governmental officials to develop flood hazard maps and Mitigation Plans. He was also involved in several large post Natural Disasters response, release, and recovery works in FEMA Region VIII areas. Dr. Liou has been a Civil Engineering Department Honorarium faculty member at the University of Colorado at Denver for 30 years. He taught several Water Resources graduate level courses and flood

25

hazard mitigation and flood plain modeling technology. He has published many technical reports regarding the floodplain mapping for the flood hazard mitigation purposes. He has been registered as a Professional Engineer in several Western States. He is the first person in Colorado State to earn his Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) title from the National Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM). Dr. Liou has three children and four grandchildren, all who live in Colorado.

Using Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling to Determine Flood Impacts

Rachel L. Tereska, P.E., Principal, NTM Engineering, Inc. Donna M. Newell, PE, CFM, NTM Engineering, Inc. Rob Jaconski, P.E., Project Manager, PennDOT, Engineering District 2-0 Abstract

The flooding impacts from the proposed SR 2004 bridge replacement over Cedar Run in Clinton County, PA had the potential to affect the residents and local businesses in the project vicinity and cause increases to the floodway water surface elevations of the adjacent Fishing Creek. Although the SR 2004 bridge over Cedar Run was not in a delineated floodway, the project site was encompassed in a FEMA detailed floodplain area for Fishing Creek. Recognizing the complexity of the hydraulic conditions at the site and the implications of such impacts, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) requested that a more accurate model be used to determine and minimize the flooding increases. The hydraulic analysis for the SR 2004 bridge replacement over Cedar Run was the first two-dimensional hydraulic model performed for PennDOT. The Federal Highway Administration Finite Element Surface-Water Modeling System (FESWMS), which interfaces with the state-of-the-art Surface-Water Modeling System (SMS) software, was used to develop the hydraulic model. The scope of the project involved replacing the pre-existing two-span I-beam bridge over Cedar Run with a proposed structure having standard lane widths, increased load carrying capacity, and safer approach conditions. To determine the impact of the proposed bridge on flooding elevations, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis was required; however, the hydraulics at the project site was complicated for two primary reasons. The FEMA floodplain mapping depicted a wide floodplain shared between Cedar Run and Fishing Creek, with a detailed study and floodway on Fishing Creek. Flood history and local testimony confirmed that during flood events, the flow was split between the Cedar Run bridge and the Fishing Creek bridge and was overtopping the road that joined the two perched structures. It was also determined that the confluence between Cedar Run and Fishing Creek during flood events occurred upstream of the study bridge, even though the low flow channel confluence was physically located downstream of the project site. The FESWMS program was most appropriate for this project, as it was developed with an emphasis on modeling highway river crossings where complex hydraulic conditions exist and conventional onedimensional flow analyses are not adequate. Typically the hydraulic model for a bridge replacement project is created using the Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-RAS River Analysis System, but its one-dimensional limitations could not accurately model the hydraulics at the Cedar Run bridge. The SR 2004 hydraulic model is a two-dimensional mesh constructed with elements to represent the geometry of the stream channels, floodplain, bridges, and roads in the project area. The model results for the existing conditions and each of the proposed roadway profiles were compared to quantify the magnitude and location of any increases in flooding elevations upstream of SR 2004. This project exemplifies the importance of hydraulics and floodplain management on an

26

otherwise simple bridge replacement project. The original proposed roadway profile resulted in significant increases in flooding for the 100-year event, which impacted numerous residential and business structures. It also would have resulted in changes to flood elevations on the Fishing Creek floodway, which would have entailed a significant effort to meet the FEMA floodplain management requirements for the township. In all, seven proposed profiles were simulated to determine the design that best balanced the safety goals and minimized flooding impacts. The final roadway profile resulted in minor increases for the 100-year event that did not impact any residences, businesses, or the floodway and minimized the mitigation required by PennDOT. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Rachel L. Tereska Ms. Tereska earned her bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from The Pennsylvania State University, where she studied stream restoration techniques and developed monitoring criteria for restoration sites during her graduate assistantship. Ms. Tereska specializes in hydrologic and hydraulic engineering and has performed numerous H&H analyses for PennDOT and NYSDOT bridge and culvert replacement projects. She has also prepared H&H Reports for federal and institutional clients such as the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant program and The Pennsylvania State University, respectively. Ms. Tereska has served as a technical resource for the PennDOT Bridge Quality Assurance Division on policies regarding scour analysis, fish baffles, and open bottom culverts, and performed quality reviews of H&H and waterway permit submissions for over 20 emergency structure replacements after the June 2006 flood. She also has experience with scour studies, FEMA CLOMR submissions, and software including HECRAS, WMS, and SMS. Ms. Tereska has played an important role in course development and instruction on water resource topics, including state-wide courses on PennDOT H&H and permitting procedures and WMS software applications. Ms. Tereska also created several formal presentations for public and community advisory committee meetings associated with a recent PennDOT transportation improvement project.

The Development of a UK National Flood Risk Assessment

Robert Deakin, Knowledge Manager ­ GIS, Halcrow Group, Ltd. Richard Harpin, Senior Vice President ­ Water Business Group, Halcrow, Inc. Abstract

The assessment of flood risk at a national scale has been a concern of the UK government since the mid1990s. Through the quantification of annual flood probabilities and risk (in terms of economic damage), it has sought to establish appropriate levels of funding for medium and long term investment strategies in flood defense and flood risk management. This work has been supported through programs of research and development jointly funded by the UK's Environment Agency and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This paper outlines the development of these methodologies, which rely heavily on locally resolute geospatial data relating to defense infrastructure, floodplain morphology and risk receptors (individual properties, transport infrastructure, agriculture, environmental and cultural heritage assets). These enable the reporting of measures of risk that can be aggregated upto regional and national levels. The national flood risk maps for the whole of England and Wales are produced each year by Halcrow and HR Wallingford on behalf of the Environment Agency. This work has supported the growth in central Government funding for flood risk management in the UK by approximately 100% between 1999 and 2005. Outputs, in the form of digital flood risk mapping, are now being used to establish the baseline for

27

existing flood management measures against which the performance of future investments can be measured in subsequent years. These methods have also enabled rapid scenario development at a national scale. To date they have been used by Government to evaluate potential investment policy options and responses to climate change. This paper will be of interest to those involved in geospatial data analysis, flood risk assessment and policy formulation and funding.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Robert Deakin For the past 18 years Rob Deakin has worked for Halcrow specializing in the application of GIS technology in the fields of flood risk management, and shoreline and coastal planning. He has worked to support multidisciplinary studies for the public and private sector in North and South America, the Caribbean as well as in the UK. For the past 10 years he has played a leading roll in the development of methods for undertaking national level flood risk assessments to support the needs of the insurance industry and Government and has been managing the delivery of the UK Environment Agency's National Flood Risk Assessment for the past 3 years.

28

SESSION B TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1:45 P.M. ­ 3:15 P.M.

B-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Avoiding Stormwater Impacts Moderator: Firas Makarem, CDM River Clyde Flood Management Strategy: An example of Integrated Catchment Study In a City Affected by Fluvial an Tidal Flooding

Pascal Lardet, Ph.D., Halcrow Group Ltd. James W. Fleming, Glascow City Council Kenneth M. Barr, WA Fairhurst and Partners Abstract

The River Clyde Flood Management Strategy (RCFMS) is an initiative of Glasgow City Council to develop a long term plan looking forward for several decades to address flood risk along the River Clyde. It is the most comprehensive flood assessment study undertaken in Scotland to date. The paper explains how the strategy has been developed and is currently being implemented in partnership between Glasgow City Council and its consultant ­ a joint venture of Halcrow Group Ltd and WA Fairhurst and Partners. Management of flood risk is a key issue for the regeneration of the Clyde waterfront and other major development initiatives in Glasgow and it is therefore vital that the decision makers have detailed and accurate knowledge of existing and future flood risks, together with options for managing and mitigating the risks and avoiding any adverse impact of developments elsewhere. The Clyde catchment extends over Southern and Central Scotland. The total catchment is nearly 3900km2 with elevation ranging between 730m and sea level. Flooding along the Clyde can be both fluvial and tidal and Glasgow is located along the transition reach between the tidal and fluvial influences. The character and identity of the River Clyde have been shaped by Glasgow's industrial past. During the 19th century, shipbuilding along the Clyde expanded vastly and the river was deepened using training walls and dredging. This allowed Glasgow to become a significant European port. The RCFMS study started in 2003 and adopted a catchment wide and integrated approach. The assessment of existing and future flood risk was based primarily on a hydrodynamic model of the River Clyde developed using Isis software. Detailed flood maps were provided along a 56km long corridor for a range of return periods using a 2m grid LiDAR DTM specifically surveyed for the project. The assessment of quay walls condition was also essential to the initial phase of the study as quay wall stability problem is intrinsically linked to flood risk. A wide variety of flood management options were considered as part of the study. These included flood warning and preparedness, catchment management options, local defences and strategic engineering solutions, including tidal barriers and upstream storage. The study concluded that local flood defences were the preferred option for protecting areas identified at risk of flooding, on the grounds of economics, environmental and operational risk. This option also provides the opportunity to address quay wall and river bank stability problems. Quay wall refurbishment is to take place employing simple stabilisation methods through to full reconstruction of the quay wall in parts. Hard and soft landscaping methods can be

29

used to disguise the true function of permanent flood defences. Demountable flood defence systems can also be integrated to provide additional protection where necessary. The provision of direct flood defences in areas identified at risk of flooding has now started to be implemented both by Glasgow City Council and by developers. In order to implement strategically the RCFMS and co-ordinate the on-going developments along the River Clyde waterfront, a "RCFMS Supplementary Development Guide" was published in December 2006. It summarises some of the key findings of the RCFMS and sets out specific development criteria to ensure that new developments deliver continuous flood defences and address issues of quay wall and river bank stability with minimal visual intrusion and adverse impact. This document will form part of the City Plan to be published in 2007. The RCFMS promotes a sustainable approach to flood risk management. Glasgow City Council has adopted development criteria consistent with national policy in Scotland. No development should take place within the "functional floodplain", which is defined as the area at risk of flooding for the 0.5% annual exceedance probability event; design flood protection levels require to include an allowance for climate change and sea level rise and an additional uncertainty freeboard. Development should not have any adverse impact elsewhere. The paper summarises the approach, method and key findings of the RCFMS, which provides an example of good practice for integrated flood risk management in a major city affected by fluvial and tidal flood risk. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Pascal Lardet Pascal Lardet has 16 years professional experience as an engineering hydrologist, with the last 7 years with Halcrow in Scotland. After he graduated in hydraulic engineering in Grenoble (France), he specialised during his PhD on rainfall runoff modelling and flood forecasting systems with application on steep Mediterranean catchments. He then carried out some post-doctoral studies on large catchment modelling and the impact of climate change at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. After 5 years back in France doing groundwater modelling, he returned to the UK in 1999 joining Halcrow in Glasgow and then Edinburgh, where he has worked mainly on flood risk management studies including the River Clyde Flood Management Strategy for Glasgow City Council. He is Halcrow market sector manager for water management and planning in Scotland and Ireland.

30

Stormwater Management vs. Storm Drain Design Standards (Why Do Downstream Properties Continue to be Flooded?)

Martin B. Covington, III, P.E., CFM, D.WRE, Carroll County Government Bureau of Resources Management Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine why some fully implemented stormwater management designs fail to protect downstream properties from the effects of increased runoff due to development. Proposed changes to State Highway Administration (SHA) and Department of Public Works (DPW) storm drain design criteria that will reduce or eliminate the problem and associated developer, professional engineer, professional land surveyor, and government agency liabilities are presented.

Figure 1: Downstream Property Damaged By Bypass Flows The Problem

When subdivisions are constructed, it is common practice to locate stormwater quantity management ponds along the entrance roadways with storm drain systems gathering the flow and diverting it into ponds (surge tanks) to be released at a lower rate over a long period. Likewise, it is also common practice to locate ponds adjacent to streams where subdivision roads cross with storm drains gathering the flow and diverting it into the ponds. In order to achieve stormwater management, adequate properly designed stormwater conveyance systems are critical. If the storm drain system is unable to completely capture the stormwater management design flow, the peak flows will not be managed in accordance with state or local laws and ordinances. This will be the case no matter how the stormwater management ponds are designed and constructed. The bypass water may significantly impact downstream properties (See Figure 1). PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Martin B. Covington III Martin Covington graduated from Virginia Tech with BS and MS Engineering degrees in 1981 and 1986. He is a licensed professional engineer in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Delaware, and West Virginia. Martin worked for WBCM (a consulting engineering firm in Baltimore, MD) for nine (9) years. There he rose to the position of Project Manager of the Highway Department's Water Resources/Environmental Engineering Group.

31

Martin is an accepted expert witness in the fields of hydrology and hydraulics. He is a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) and a Diplomate of the American Association of Water Resource Engineers (DWRE). Martin has spent the last 11 years as the Program Engineer for Carroll County, Maryland's Stormwater Management Program and the last four (4) years as the Program Engineer for the reconstituted Floodplain Management Program. He is a principal author of the Carroll County Stormwater and Floodplain Management Ordinances, Manuals, and checklists adopted in April, 2004.

WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS/RESTORATION IN AN URBAN SETTING

James M. Eisenhardt, PWS, Senior Consultant, Duffield Associates, Inc. Abstract

This presentation will explore a case study (Tweeds Park) for achieving multiple policy and program improvement objectives for a contaminated/blighted site in the White Clay Creek Wild and Scenic Watershed. Brownfields development, flood mitigation/control (regional), habitat restoration and cultural resources preservation goals were achieved in this unique public/private partnership. Duffield Associates, Inc. was retained to assist the Delaware Department of Transportation in regional stormwater improvements at this location for protecting downstream properties/development, while simultaneously planning, designing, and constructing a recreation park that includes the addition of multipurpose athletic fields and the relocation and restoration of the historic two-story Tweed's Tavern dating from 1796. Duffield Associates is providing "Green Technologies" for control of the runoff from the park and upland drainage basin, such as reforestation, wetlands creation, bio-retention and bio-swales. Almost completed, this design build park project will consist of an historic village, a regional stormwater management facility, 3 multi-purpose athletic fields, a Tot-lot, parking and access improvements for adjoining properties. Concurrently, Duffield Associates was retained by the Hockessin Athletic Club (HAC) to redevelop an adjoining land locked parcel. Access through the DelDOT site was required. Brownfield related cleanup and money was used for both projects. The HAC, scheduled for completion in winter 2006, includes the removal of previous industrial users and conversion of the site to a state of art athletic facility complementing the Tweeds park. The redevelopment of this contaminated site includes riparian reforestation, use of BMP water quality techniques and open space reforestation. This is an example of a positive private-public partnership that was able to achieve multiple restoration and improvement objectives not otherwise or typically possible. Creative funding, planning, permitting, design and construction approaches were all used to achieve project objectives.

32

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: James M. Eisenhardt Mr. Eisenhardt has over 20 years of experience in wetlands delineation, mitigation site searches, wetlands mitigation feasibility and design and development of mitigation banks. He is a recognized expert in Section 404/401 regulatory programs of the Clean Water Act, assisting clients to obtain regulatory approvals for highly sensitive projects and is also familiar with numerous regulatory programs. His regulatory expertise includes marinas, beach front development, dredging, ports, infrastructure and commercial development. His mitigation feasibility and design experience includes tidal/coastal marshes, bottomland forests, and wet flats. Mr. Eisenhardt is a leader in innovative and creative approaches to administering mitigation banks and finding creative alternatives. He has authored/co-authored numerous white papers on behalf of the regulatory community that set out reasonable approaches and standards for litigation which are being used today in several states. Mr. Eisenhardt has a B.S. and M.S. in Biology from Bucknell University.

33

B-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Hurricane Recovery Planning (I) Moderator: Lillian Pitts, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Long-Term Recovery Planning

Mary M. Shaw, Principal Urban Planner, URS Corporation Abstract

Following a disaster, communities are faced with unanticipated problems as well as opportunities to become more sustainable and resilient. Sometime after the initial shock of a disastrous event and the response and recovery phases, the rebuilding phase begins. It is during this time that problems of damaged buildings and infrastructure are addressed. Communities may choose to carefully rebuild and replace homes and businesses, roads, bridges and utilities in such a way that the likelihood of incurring similar damage from a future event is diminished. This will facilitate the recovery process in the future and the community may be said to be more resilient. However, without a clear goal of becoming a more sustainable community in the future, recovery plans typically call for putting things back together as they were prior to the disaster. Research shows that the desire for things to get back to normal generally outweighs worries about such an event recurring. What factors contribute to moving towards sustainability rather than duplicating previous development patterns? In this presentation, conclusions of a research study about recovery planning processes that have been implemented will be presented. Recovery planning processes will be compared showing that some focus on design issues, others on traditional comprehensive planning goals, some on preparedness, and others on mitigating the effects of the natural hazard that led to the disaster. Sustainable goals will be itemized and their prevalence will be compared to that of less sustainable goals. Mitigation strategies that have been adopted will be summarized, and findings on multi-objective planning strategies will be highlighted. Multi-objective strategies may not only help to make a community less prone to disaster but also facilitate achieving more traditional planning goals. For example, floodplain management actions, such as using floodplains as open space, can also accomplish other objectives such as providing passive and active recreation areas, preserving trees for environmental benefits, and protecting wildlife habitat. The presentation will conclude with an assessment of the factors that move communities away from rebuilding exactly as they were before the disaster and towards greater sustainability and resiliency. These factors include the timing of the planning process, the pre-disaster economic conditions in the community, and the extent of the disaster. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mary M. Shaw Dr. Shaw is an urban planner whose practice has most recently focused on implementing hazard mitigation and disaster recovery strategies. She has worked extensively on the flood map modernization process and on evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of planning alternatives. Earlier work focused on policy evaluation, public participation, community economic development, and open space planning. She holds masters degrees in mathematics and urban planning and a PhD in City and Regional Planning, is a certified floodplain manager and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Mary Shaw has

34

taught at Syracuse University, Virginia Tech University and the University of North Carolina and has over 20 years of experience in the non-profit, public and private sectors. She joined URS Corporation in early 2006.

COMPREHENSIVE HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS STUDIES TAKING THE TRADITIONAL HURRICANE EVACUATION STUDY TO A NEW LEVEL

Brandon Bolinski, Hurricane Specialist, FEMA Region IV Brock Long, Hurricane Program Manager, FEMA Region IV William Massey, Director, Hurricane and Emergency Management Programs, Dewberry Abstract

BACKGROUND: For more than 25 years, the standard for conducting Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HES) was set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) now under the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS) in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A traditional HES consist of five major analyses and was focused on the evacuation of the threatened population from the areas subject to storm surge and those living in mobile homes. These analyses are: Hazards Analysis: Determines magnitude of wind and storm surge hazards that can be expected from hurricanes of various categories, tracks, and forward speeds. The SLOSH model from the National Weather service is generally used to determine the expected storm surge ; Vulnerability Analysis: Identifies those areas, populations, and facilities that are vulnerable to specific hazards under a variety of hurricane threats; Behavioral Analysis: Estimates the expected response of the population threatened by various hurricane events in order to determine the population expected to evacuate, probable destinations of evacuees, public shelter use, and utilization of available vehicles; Shelter Analysis: Presents an inventory of public shelter facilities, capacities of the shelters, vulnerability of shelters to storm surge flooding, and shelter demand; Transportation Analysis: Estimates the time required to evacuate the vulnerable population; Decision Assistance: Provides tools to assist decision makers to utilize the technical data in conjunction with real-time hurricane and weather data from the NWS. An HES is critical to the emergency manager and the decision maker as the protection of the public is their most important responsibility. However, the actual evacuation for a storm event generally takes no more that one or two days. In reality, evacuation is only one of the challenges that a hurricane presents to a community. The effects of a land falling storm are felt by the community for years and sometimes decades. In order for a community to be fully prepared for a hurricane disaster (and any other disaster for that matter), officials must plan and prepare for more issues than the evacuation of the threatened population. MODERNIZED HURRICANE EVACUATION STUDIES: This is a detailed comprehensive analysis of the issues and problems facing a community as a result of hurricanes, tropical storms and other natural and/or man-made hazards. In cases where newly developed topographic data such as LIDAR is now available, the SLOSH model should be updated with this data and a new simulation study should be completed to develop more accurate surge data for the Hazards Analysis. A good example of this is the current project recently completed for the State of North Carolina where LIDAR data was used to update the SLOSH models and new surge data was developed for the State. FEMA is currently holding discussions with the State of North Carolina on the subject of conducting a Modernized HES using this new surge data. In addition to the five specific analyses listed above, other issues would include a Re-Entry Analysis, a Business Mitigation and Recovery Analysis, a Community Storm Impact Analysis, a Recovery Analysis, a

35

Technology Analysis, a Disaster Mitigation Analysis and developing and conducting Training/Public Awareness sessions. In order to take full advantage of the data developed in the HES and the real time weather information available from the NWS, an easy to use GIS Tool Set should be developed. This Tool Set will allow better and easier utilization and display of the community data and study results and provide officials with the ability to make better decisions on a daily basis as well as during an event. This will allow officials to view, interact with and better manage the data and the emergency event affecting the community. This tool set should be robust and provide the capability to ingest real time hazards data from various sources and allow the user to query the data to determine the potential impacts to the community and the public SUMMARY: Relevance to the conference issues- Track 2, New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery This session deals with a new perspective in dealing with hurricane planning and preparedness as the Modernized process totally revamps the 25 year tradition of dealing ONLY with evacuation issues when conducting Hurricane studies. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Brock Long Brock Long currently serves as the Hurricane Program Manager for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Region IV office in Atlanta, GA. In this capacity, he provides training and technical evacuation planning assistance/guidance to federal, state, and local government officials, and serves as a National Team Leader for both the Hurricane Liaison Team (located at the National Hurricane Center) and the Evacuation Liaison Team during operational hurricane threats. Brock holds a master's degree from Appalachian State University in public administration with a concentration in city/county management.

Updating DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plans: OH NO, NOT AGAIN!

Stuart Wallace AICP, Hazard Mitigation Planner, James Lee Witt Associates Abstract

The Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) is working with local communities on more than $10,000,000 worth of hazard mitigation planning and project development work under the Planning Pilot Grant Program (PPGP). This program was initiated early in 2006 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) specifically for states affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. Originally termed the "Expanded Mitigation Strategies Planning Grant Pilot" by FEMA, Louisiana has accepted applications from more than 50 parishes (Louisiana's term for county level governments) and communities to undertake this important planning program. The intent of the PPGP is two-fold, to provide resources for communities to: 1. 2. Undertake updates of existing hazard mitigation plans to reflect new data resulting from the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the State of Louisiana; and Evaluate specific mitigation actions to identify and document cost effective, environmentally sound and technically feasible projects for future HMGP funding.

The first goal is the focus of this presentation; updates of local and parish hazard mitigation plans using the Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFE's) resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the changing demographics in many of the affected communities.

36

ABFE's were developed for all or part of 15 parishes in Louisiana. Under the PPGP, most of these parishes and some individual communities undertook plan updates to incorporate these new flood elevations and to reflect significant changes in population and built assets. A range of methodologies have been employed to gather and use new data in these updates. The changes in the resulting updated plans are profound in many cases. Although the need to update the plans was forced by the 2005 Hurricanes, it has provided a good opportunity to see how updates of DMA 2000 plans can be undertaken to not only incorporate new information but to address other shortcomings of the original plans. Over the next few years, all of the local plans in the country will need to be updated and the insights gained from these first significant attempts will be useful for all interested parties. The presentation will focus on 1. Background of the program; 2. Techniques used to incorporate ABFE's and changing demographics; 3. Changes in hazard mitigation plans; and 4. Problems encountered for future reference as other communities attempt to update their plans. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Stuart Wallace Stuart Wallace is a certified planner with a master's degree in civil engineering. During more than 20 years of professional practice, Mr. Wallace has gained diverse experience as a public agency staff member; university faculty member; business manager and owner; and private consultant. Since 1999, Mr. Wallace has worked as a consultant supporting natural and manmade hazard mitigation planning programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and helping dozens of state and local agencies and private institutions create and implement hazard mitigation plans. Currently, Mr. Wallace is working with James Lee Witt Associates providing support for the Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness in the development and administration of their Hazard Mitigation Planning Pilot Grant Program.

37

B-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Mitigation 101 Sponsored By: URS Moderator: Bel Marquez, URS Corporation Maximizing HMGP Grants During Post-Disaster Recovery

Lawrence Frank, AICP, CFM, URS Corporation Don Glondys, CFM, Principal Risk Analyst, URS Corporation Abstract

The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) has become, along with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, the primary funding sources for implementing hazard mitigation during the recovery process. Although the program requirements have remained the same, mitigation options have expanded in the aftermath of the large-scale 2004 and 2005 disasters. This presentation will discuss current HMGP tools provided by FEMA, provide a brief review of lessons learned from evaluations and technical reviews of recent applications, and solicit input from HMGP applicants on ways to improve the HMGP grant process. The tools include FEMA sponsored application preparation training at the state and Regional level, the HMGP Desk Reference, and the Version 3.0 (2006) Mitigation BCA Toolkit CD. Under the FEMA grant programs, a full understanding of the application process and support data requirements has become more important due to the funding levels and the number of grant applications. FEMA must evaluate the eligibility of grant activities, potential NFIP and NEPA impacts, and the costeffectiveness on the basis of the data submitted by applicants in support of their applications. For some new grant preparers, the process can be unnecessarily overwhelming and appear complicated. The goal of this session is to break the requirements down into their basic elements so that BCA preparers not only understand what is needed, but why certain data are essential for preparing an eligible and complete application. The presentation will focus on the lessons learned from recent grant application periods and how applicants can reduce their efforts while improving their applications. Topics for discussion during the presentation: Brief overview of the of the grant HMGP application process Preparation of well documented applications Keys to avoiding common HMGP oversights Suggestions for submission of successful applications Panelists Keith Turi (FEMA) ­ HMGP Program Lead Brooke Griggs, PE, CFM (URS) - Senior BCA Risk Analyst Donald Glondys, CFM (URS) ­ Corporate Lead for FEMA BCA Point of Contact: Don Glondys (URS) Phone: 312-697-7237 (direct) Fax: 312-939-4198 Email: [email protected]

38

Southern CA Losses Avoided Study

Shabbar Saifee, FEMA Headquarters L. Gina White, LAS Project Manager, FEMA Region IX Alan Springett, Physical Scientist, FEMA Headquarters Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of FEMA-funded flood mitigation projects in Southern California. FEMA provided funding for these projects through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for disasters that occurred in California during the period of 1992-1995. This loss avoidance study asked the question, "How much damage would have occurred from a storm event if these flood mitigation projects had not been built?" This study quantified the benefits of FEMA-funded projects using actual storm events that have occurred since the construction of the projects. Existing FEMA benefit analysis tools, such as the Hazards U.S. ­ Multi-Hazard (HAZUS-MH) Flood Model and BenefitCost Analysis (BCA) Models, look at avoided losses (benefits) based on current conditions or pre-project conditions for design events such as the 100-year flood. For this loss avoidance study, the focus shifted to post-construction conditions and actual storm events. Approach: The main steps for conducting this loss avoidance analysis were the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Develop an initial list of completed projects. Collect detailed data for analysis. Determine the most extreme post-construction precipitation event(s). Conduct a flood inundation analysis for the extreme events for a) pre-construction, and b) postconstruction scenarios. Calculate losses (damages) associated with the event(s) for a) pre-construction, and b) postconstruction scenarios.

The following sections provide an overview of each of these steps. Step 1: Project Selection To start this study, FEMA considered all flood-related HMGP projects in Southern California from the period of 1992-1995 because these projects had the highest likelihood of being completed and having damaging post-construction events. The initial list of 37 projects covered the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. These projects were first screened for the availability of complete HMGP files. Seventeen projects that had complete HMGP files proceeded to the data collection and analysis steps of the study. Projects were eliminated from further consideration when certain data were not available, such as topography, and when analysis results showed no post-construction damaging event. This screening process found six projects had sufficient data and analysis results to assess avoided losses. Step 2: Data Collection Data collection was a significant portion of the effort for this study, and was essential to completing the analysis. Data was provided by local, State, and Federal agencies, private engineering and consulting firms, and third-party data vendors. Table 1 lists and describes the types of data collected and the challenges for collecting each data type. Table 1. Data Collection Summary Data Type Description Challenges

39

Data Type Project Data

Description Background information for each project, including HMGP project files, Construction Drawings and Plans, and GIS data and aerial photography Data describing the terrain for each project area - gathered from paper files of site plans and in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and CADD digital formats Rainfall or stream gage data describing severity of storm events Data required to conduct hydrology, hydraulic, and inundation modeling

Challenges Completeness of project files; coordination with multiple data sources

Topographic Data

Data availability especially for pre-project conditions, data detail (contour interval), aerial extent of data (often did not include downstream areas) Completeness of data for post-construction time period, different data collection intervals, lack of stream gages Hydrology: Availability of model input and output files Hydraulics: Lack of models for the downstream reaches affected by flooding Inundation: Lack of topographic data to produce detailed inundation boundaries Need to visit final six projects for structure information after completion of inundation mapping Need to have completed inundation analysis to determine specific at-risk locations where asset data would be required for analysis

Storm Event Data Inundation Modeling Data

Field Data

Information gathered from site visits including photography and structure data Data used to determine value of different assets affected by flooding, including structure replacement values, road repair costs, and traffic count data

Asset Data

Collecting this data was an ongoing process throughout the study. Initial field visits to the detailed data collection project sites with the communities were conducted to gain a better understanding of project layouts, and to initiate detailed data collection. The focus of the initial data collection efforts was project selection, so efforts centered on topographic, storm event, and inundation modeling data. Data gathered included paper copies, digital files, and entire digital datasets, such as extensive GIS data with mapping related to all data items. Once the six projects were selected for damage analysis, the focus shifted to collecting asset data. Additional field visits were conducted, which focused on the assets that were shown by the inundation modeling to be flooded. Information on assets and asset damage information, such as replacement costs and depth-damage curves, were also gathered. Step 3: Storm Event Analysis Using the best available weather data, the most extreme post-construction storm event was identified for each project. Only one of the 17 projects had stream gage data that directly measured stream flow. The remaining projects required precipitation data to model hydrologic flow response. All storm data gages used were in the same or adjacent watershed as the project site. Most of the largest events since project completion occurred during the winter months of 2002-2003 and 2004-2005. However, a majority of these storm events had less than a 10-year return frequency. Since many of the project areas had pre-project drainage capacities greater than the 10-year event, those projects were removed from further consideration. The most challenging aspect of the precipitation analysis was finding data that covered the entire postconstruction time frame and determining the maximum 24-hour event for data from data collected at different time-recording intervals (hourly, daily, and depth-based.) Step 4: Inundation Analysis

40

Delineating the inundation boundary required modeling the hydrology, hydraulics, and flood inundation of the event under consideration. Table 2 describes each of these analysis types and a summary of the methods used for the six projects that were analyzed for damages. Table 2. Inundation Analysis Summary Analysis Type Description Hydrologic Modeling Hydraulic Modeling Determines the runoff flow amounts for the watershed and stream reach of interest Determines the water surface elevations at modeled stream reach cross-sections for the runoff flows of interest Methods Used County-based hydrologic models usually based on the Modified Rational Method New US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center ­ River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulics models based on crosssections cut from topographic and project design data GIS-based methods using raster and vector digital terrain models

Inundation Modeling

Determines the flood inundation boundary based on water surface elevations and topographic data

The data gathered for the six projects selected for damage analysis did not include enough data to "re-run" the hydrologic, hydraulic, and inundation models with the most extreme post-construction storm event. Hydrologic information for each site was estimated using available data. The hydrologic models run for each project used similar methods to those in the project files. Hydraulic models had to be created for each of the projects. Hydraulic models were created from cross-sections extracted from the available topographic data and information about pre-construction conditions. The flood inundation boundaries were determined by mapping modeled water surface elevations onto available topography data. Inundation boundaries were derived only for "out-of-bank" conditions where damage occurred. Step 5: Loss Estimation Analysis The final step to determine the losses avoided for each project was to estimate the dollar amount of damage for different loss categories. Table 3 includes the methods used to calculate losses for each of the final six projects analyzed. Most of the final projects analyzed for losses avoided had some type of structure damage and road flooding. All events modeled in this study produced "nuisance flooding" where the roadways would have become the overflow channel and minimally flooding structures along the roads and drainage channels requiring rerouting of traffic to neighboring roads. However, none of the final projects analyzed would have had catastrophic flooding with substantially damaged structures and bridge failures from the storm event being modeled. The lack of damaging post-construction events was the main reason only six projects reached the avoided flood losses calculation step of this study. Unavailable data, such as detailed drainage network information and downstream topographic data, also had an influence on the final list of projects analyzed. Table 3. Loss Estimation Analysis Summary Loss Categories Physical Damage Costs Loss Types Methods Used Damages based on flood depths from inundation mapping, depth damage curves from BCA and HAZUS-MH, and structure replacement costs from cost guides (R.S. Means and Marshall and Swift) Damages based on flood depths from inundation mapping, depth damage curves from BCA and HAZUS-MH, and contents values based on structure replacement costs from cost guides (R.S. Means and Marshall and Swift)

Structure

Contents

41

Roads and Bridges Infrastructure Landscaping Environmental Impacts Vehicles/ Equipment Displacement Costs Loss of Rental Income Loss of Business Income Loss of Function Costs Lost Wages Disruption Time for Residents Loss of Public Services Economic Impact of Utility Loss Economic Impact of Road/Bridge Closure Emergency Management Costs Results · · Debris Cleanup Governmental Costs

Damages scaled from historical damages from project file Damages scaled from historical damages to infrastructure mentioned in project file Damages scaled from historical damages from project file Damages scaled from historical damages from project file Damages scaled from historical damages from project file Damages based on flood depths from inundation mapping and displacement curves from BCA and HAZUS-MH Not applicable to projects in this study (no rental or leased properties affected) Based on business type and information from project file Based on displacement time and census data for income and structure occupancy Not applicable to projects in this study (no major damage to residential structures in the study) Not applicable to projects in this study (no public service locations affected by flooding in the study) If damaged infrastructure, use BCA or HAZUS-MH unit costs per structure Use available traffic count information and transportation mapping to determine extra travel time and use unit costs from BCA Damages scaled from historical damages from debris mentioned in project file Damages scaled from historical costs to government mentioned in project file

Results will include a "lessons learned" section suggesting improvements to aid the FEMA loss avoidance analysis process in the future. Detailed results for the projects analyzed will be presented.

42

Recovery Planning and Mitigation Planning/Working Together

Rich Roths, AICP, Principal Planner, URS Corporation Abstract

Recent Catastrophic disasters have highlighted the issue that those involved in emergency management have known for a long time: If members of our communities and at all levels of government are not ready to respond and begin recovery activities as early as possible after a hazard event, the delay in activities can, at the very least, delay recovery and, at the worst impede the ultimate recovery. Unfortunately many communities don't prepare for disasters when they have a chance. Many communities wait for someone else (the Federal or State Government) to act on their behalf or they act like members of a procrastinator's club and delay planning because "We have plenty of time to prepare." The fact is that communities don't have plenty of time to prepare. Waiting until the disaster occurs is too late. Like all of us, communities have more work to accomplish then the amount of time in the day. One way to deal with the lack of time available is to look at those activities that can be doubled-up or combined where possible. One way of accomplishing this is through combining pre disaster mitigation planning and recovery planning. This discussion will be divided into two parts, Recovery Planning and Mitigation Planning. I will then point out ways that time may be maximized by coordinating the work into one document. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Rich Roths Mr. Roths is an Urban Planner with more than 24 years of experience in Federal, State, and local government as well as consulting. He has delivered training in mitigation planning across the United States and represented the American Planning Association in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. While working for FEMA, Mr. Roths served on the workgroup that prepared the rules for the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. As a principle Planner for URS, he has prepared mitigation plans, review mitigation plans, trained local officials and state officials and wrote FEMA training manuals.

43

B-4 Going Coastal: Living at the Coast Moderator: Lynne Dingerson, NOAA Coastal Services Center Poquoson Virginia: A City on the Rise Recovers from Isabel

Deborah Gordon Mills, Hazard Mitigation Program Manager, VDEM Charles Burgess, City Manager, City of Poquoson Vicky Diggs, Assistant City Manager, Poquoson Virginia Abstract

Poquoson Virginia is a small city nestled between York County and Hampton Virginia in the historic Hampton Roads region. This small city of 12,500 is comprised of 14.7 square miles, of which more than 95%is special flood hazard area. Poquoson was essentially "ground zero" on September 18, 2003 when Hurricane Isabel made landfall in Virginia. Virtually every structure within the city experienced water and wind damage. Structures built to modern construction codes and floodplain management ordinance requirements faired better than older structures, but surge 10' above grade proved devastating. Poquoson's roots are in fishing and truck farming, and today many city families are tied to the waterman heritage of the city and live in homes that were built decades or even a century ago. Many of these families are of modest means. Following immediate response and early recovery phases of Isabel emergency management, a long term recovery task force was formed. Leaving Poquoson, or even the family property, was never an option for many of those impacted by the storm. Virginia's structural elevation experience was limited to several dozen funded with HMGP monies dispersed throughout the state. In addition, the relatively new Increased Cost of Compliance Program had not been extensively used since its inception. Poquoson provided the opportunity to restore damaged properties and thus the community through residential elevations funded through a variety of mechanisms ­ ICC, HMGP, and earmarked Isabel Community Development and Block Grant funds. While a frequent victim of severe nor'easters, hurricanes and floods since European settlement, the Isabel recovery effort enabled Poquoson to use many federal, state and private assistance programs to ensure reduced future damages to this residential Virginia coastal community. Note: Poquoson will be a featured conference tour. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Deborah Mills Deborah Mills currently serves in the Recovery and Mitigation Division of the Department of Emergency Management. She has held this position since December, 2005. She manages a staff of recovery project and planning specialists and serves as a Commonwealth manager during disaster recovery operations. Her degree is in Forest Resource Management and Forest Engineering from West Virginia University. She served 10 years for the Virginia Department of Forestry, first as an Area Forester and later as the Forest Resources Planner responsible for agency strategic planning, economic assessment, watershed planning and other administrative duties. After a year as a forestry consultant, Deborah rejoined state government in 1989 with the Department of Conservation & Recreation. Following six Presidential declared disasters in 30 months, she moved to the Department of Emergency Management as the Hazard Mitigation Program Manager in early 2004. She recently assisted the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Mitigation Program for a month in Biloxi following Hurricane Katrina. Deborah is active in her downtown Richmond neighborhood, gardens and volunteers with Habitat for Humanity and Chamberlayne Actor's Theater.

44

The Delaware River forces Task Force

Laura Tessieri, P.E., CFM, Delaware River Basin Commission John A. Miller, P.E., CFM, Princeton Hydro, LLC Abstract

Storm surge is the deadliest of the hazards associated with hurricanes and can cause catastrophic property damage. Due to the severity of damage caused by storm surge, government, private entities, and the public, need to know where storm surge could affect people and property. The areas of focus for this study are the coastal counties of the state of Georgia. This study involves two spatial relationships between the Sea Land Overlake Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) layer and the socio-economic data, census data including housing units, population, mobile homes, households, and population in households. The first relationship is a simple centroid based relationship, while the other is a percentage area relationship. The analysis is separated by county and displayed in a spreadsheet showing the percentage of socio-economic data within each category of Hurricane storm surge strength. The statistical analysis shows that a large percentage of Georgia's coastal counties including socio-economic factors are highly susceptible to storm surge. The presentation of this study will include information about the effects of storm surge, the methods used to determine the vulnerability, and the modeled effects to Georgia counties by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Below is the statistical output for Chatham County concerning the socio-economics that could be affected by storm surge at different hurricane strengths.

Chatham

Category Population Housing Units Population in Housing Households Mobile Homes Method % Area Centroid % Area Centroid % Area Centroid % Area Total 232048 232048 99683 99683 224039 89865 5584 Cat_1 58047 41214 24991 18232 56193 16172 1038 % Cat 1 25.02% 17.76% 25.07% 18.29% 25.08% 18.00% 18.59% Cat_2 97122 85712 41417 37433 94532 33760 2180 % Cat 2 41.85% 36.94% 41.55% 37.55% 42.19% 37.57% 39.04% Cat_3 % Cat 3 149238 64.31% 146735 63.23% 63123 63.32% 62246 62.44% 144745 64.61% 56397 62.76% 3739 66.96% Cat_4 % Cat 4 Cat_5 180083 77.61% 196448 176294 75.97% 194253 76311 76.55% 83109 75083 75.32% 82162 174626 77.94% 190455 68249 75.95% 74753 4624 82.81% 4980 % Cat 5 84.66% 83.71% 83.37% 82.42% 85.01% 83.18% 89.18%

This is an estimation of the effects of hurricanes producing storm surge that pursue inland paths and should not be used as fact. Data Sources: 2000 US Census, 2000 USACE-NOAA-FEMA-GEMA SLOSH The SLOSH layer comes with a + or - 20% error possibility % Area Method: The Category (Population, Housing Units, etc.) storm surge category (Cat_1, Cat_2, etc.) totals are determined by spatially calculating the %area of each block group within each storm surge category. Centroid Method: The block group is reduced to a central point within the block group and related to the storm surge category (Cat_1, etc.) for each Category (Population, etc.) Notes: As of now the reliability testing of the methodologies is not completed, but could be completed by the 2007 ASFPM conference depending on the availability and status of data from states with recent hurricanes.

45

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Laura Tessieri Laura M. Tessieri, P.E., CFM has been a member of the New Jersey Association for Floodplain Management (NJAFM) for the past three years. She looks forward to a productive year ahead with NJAFM as the newly elected Secretary. As a Water Resources Engineer in the Operations Branch of the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), she is responsible for technical and administrative support of DRBC flood loss reduction activities and assisting with hydrologic modeling activities. She serves as a staff liaison to the DRBC Flood Advisory Committee and is highly involved with the current development of a Regional Flood Mitigation Plan for four counties in NJ located within the Delaware River Basin. Ms. Tessieri holds a dual Bachelor of Science Degree in Bioresource Engineering from Cook College and the College of Engineering, Rutgers University. She has six years of water/environmental resources related experience; previously working as a consulting engineer in NJ. In spring 2006, she attended the Advanced HAZUS-MH for Flood Training course at the FEMA National Emergency Training Center and received certification under the Association of State Floodplain Managers Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) program.

How Many People Live in the Coastal Zone?

Mark Crowell, Physical Scientist, FEMA Scott Edelman, P.E., President, Watershed Concepts Kevin Coulton, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, Watershed Concepts Abstract

An oft-cited statistic referenced in many coastal-oriented articles published in various forums over the past few years states that approximately 53% (or more) of the U.S. population lives within "coastal counties" or in the "coastal zone." The focus of some of the articles is water quality or other environmental issues. Other articles center on the impacts of sea level rise, beach erosion, or the potential impacts of hurricanes and nor'easters on the coastal population. The "53-percent of the U.S. population" figure is derived by combining U.S. Census data with a specific Department of Commerce definition of "Coastal County" that is particularly inclusive in terms of what constitutes a "coastal county." A 1998 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report provides the details behind the generation of this coastal population statistic, and is often the source cited by these and other articles concerned directly or indirectly with coastal demographics. The term "coastal county" is generally defined in the 1998 report as a county in which at least 15% of its total land area is located within the nation's coastal watershed. Obviously, the use of this watershed-based definition of coastal county/zone, which emphasizes land areas within which water flows into the ocean or Great Lakes, should be applied in situations where coastal water quality is an issue; for example, papers or research concerned with the environmental health of our coastal waters. However, studies concerned with the impacts of near-shore coastal hazards, coastal erosion, and especially sea level rise, require a refined spatial definition for what constitutes the coastal zone or a coastal county. Because of this, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently begun compiling U.S. Census population and housing demographic data and NFIP policy and claims data for coastal counties and coastal Census block groups; this work builds upon a recent FEMA effort that assigned a relative "flood risk" value to all Census block groups in the Nation to guide Map Modernization funding and mapping decisions. FEMA's use of the smaller Census block group unit, compared to the larger coastal county designation, is intended to provide more refined statistics than those presented in the 1998 NOAA report.

46

For example, the above demographic and NFIP data are being evaluated within various coastal spatial boundaries, including: coastal Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs); coastal Census block groups; coastal watersheds; coastal counties; and, coastal buffers at progressively increasing inland distances from the shoreline. In contrast to the 1998 statistic, preliminary estimates from this work indicate that approximately 80,000,000 people, or 30% of the U.S. population, live in coastal counties where "coastal county" is defined as any county that contains a V-zone (that is, counties impacted by coastal storms and flooding). FEMA anticipates the findings from this work will help guide continued coastal flood insurance study efforts under the Map Modernization Program and will benefit many other public and private entities by providing updated and refined statistics related to the Nation's coastal areas. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mark Crowell Mark Crowell has BS and MS degrees in Geology (University of Maryland and Virginia Tech) and has worked for FEMA for the past 17 years, mainly on coastal erosion issues. He has had more than 20 papers (and numerous abstracts) published on erosion rate analysis and on the National Flood Insurance Program, including 12 papers in the Journal of Coastal Research (JCR) and Shore and Beach, and more recently an article, "Erosion: Historical Analysis and Forecasting," that appeared in the Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (2005). He is co-editor of two Special Issues of JCR: Coastal Erosion Mapping and Management, 1999 (Crowell and Leatherman); and Shoreline Mapping and Change Analysis: Technical Considerations and Management Implications, 2003 (Byrnes, Crowell, and Fowler).

47

B-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Levees (I) Moderator: Wayne Berggren, FEMA Santa Maria River Restudy

Ray Lenaburg, Senior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region IX Siamak Esfandiary, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, Project Manager, Dewberry Moe Khine, P.E., Senior Technical Specialist, Dewberry Abstract

The effective Flood Insurance Studies for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties depict the Santa Maria River Levee, near the City of Santa Maria as providing protection from the approximate 1-percent annual chance flood. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers upon review of the available information, found that the levee could not be certified as providing protection from the 1-percent annual chance flood as per the requirements of 44CFR65.10. Therefore FEMA decided to fund a detailed study that includes "with" and "without levee" scenarios. Traditionally, the "without levee" analysis entails removing the levee system completely and including the entire cross sectional area in the water surface computations and delineating a continuous floodplain that consists of the riverside and landside areas. However, the topography of the area behind the Santa Maria levees are such that in case of a failure, the portion of the flood entering the landside of the levee will take its own path and will flow parallel to Santa Maria River and will re-join the main river farther downstream. A new method is proposed to perform the analysis that would present the potential hazard more accurately. The proposed method is consistent with the technique described in the Guidelines & Specifications, Appendix H. Authors: 1. Raymond T. Lenaburg Senior Civil Engineer FEMA Region IX Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 [email protected] 510.627.7181 Siamak Esfandiary, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, Project Manager Dewberry 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031 [email protected] 703.849.0313

2.

48

3.

Moe, Khine, P.E. Senior Technical Specialist Dewberry 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031 [email protected] 703.849.2338

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Ray Lenaberg Ray Lenaburg is Senior Engineer of the Community Mitigation Program Branch with the Mitigation Division of the Department of Homeland Security-FEMA Region IX in Oakland, CA. He has supervised more than 600 Flood Insurance Studies in Arizona, California, Nevada, Hawaii, and the other Pacific Trust Territories. Prior to joining the NFIP in 1976, he worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The Levee Certification Program Hydraulic Modeling and Mapping of Areas behind Older Embankments

Lisa Ackerman Jeffrey, P.E., CFM, Evans Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton Inc. Miles Hebert, P.E., CFM, Evans Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton Inc. Abstract

The Hap Cremean Water Plant (HCWP) for the City of Columbus Ohio was constructed in 1956 along the banks of the Big Walnut Creek. As part of the plant's construction, three sludge lagoons were constructed. The embankments, which separated the lagoons from the river, were present on the site when the water plant property was purchased, prior to the plant's construction. Additional embankments were then constructed on the property to fully surround the lagoons for sludge storage. Although maintained and routinely inspected by the Division of Water, the embankments would not meet the current certification criteria of 44 CFR 65.10 for flood protection structures. The FIS hydraulic model and FIRM map did not account for these embankments. Furthermore, the majority of each sludge lagoon was classified as being a part of the active floodway for the river. Due to the presence of the fully bounding embankments, it would not be possible for this area to serve as a part of the floodway or to provide the critical conveyance area for the river. This presentation will present details of the modeling approach, technical and regulatory issues relative to calculation of flood hazard for areas protected by older embankments which do not meet the criteria within 44 CFR 65.10. Our first consideration regarding the flood potential of this site was that the FIS model represented a conservative modeling approach, reflecting the flood potential in the case of embankment failure. However, further evaluation of the river hydraulics indicated that with the embankments in place, the base flood would be channeled through in this area and that this restriction of the downstream floodway would result

49

in increased base flood elevation in the area immediately upstream. The FIS model, which had not accounted for the existing embankments, was not accurately reflecting the upstream flood potential. Due to the recent focus on the modeling and flood insurance requirements for areas behind this type of levee, FEMA Region V was consulted regarding the best method for modeling this situation where embankments are affecting flood hazards but do not meet the criteria for levee certification. Both FEMA Region V and a consultant working for the FEMA Map-Mod Team recommended that the reach first be modeled with the actual embankments in place in order to redefine the floodway of the river. Then, a secondary model simulation should then be developed to reflect the case where all embankments were breached. The details of this modeling effort and the impact on the final mapping of this area will be discussed. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Lisa Ackerman Jeffrey Lisa has 15 years experience in stormwater and floodplain management. She is responsible for providing technical services in stormwater and floodplain management including hydraulic modeling, stormwater system modeling and design, and in stormwater master planning. Her qualifications include watershed planning on a regional basis as well as regulatory policy assistance. She is recognized by the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) as a Certified Floodplain Manager possessing a thorough knowledge of the National Flood Insurance Program. Lisa currently serves as a project manager for EMH&T in municipal stormwater management. Education/Years of Experience: B.S. in biology and geology from Colgate University; M.S. in water resource engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 15 years experience as engineering consultant in field of water resource engineering. EMH&T 5500 New Albany Road Columbus OH 43054 Direct: 614-775-4520 Fax: 614-775-4876 [email protected]

Pilot study on the strength of dikes of the river Lek in the Netherlands using a GIS-based method developed by Fugro (FAST4DMAP©).

Martin van der Meer, M. Sc., Hydraulic Engineering Dept., Fugro Ingenieursbureau B.V. Kin Sun Lam, M.Sc. Hans Knotter Abstract

In February 2005, the Waterboard `De Stichtse Rijnlanden' assigned Fugro to accomplish a pilot study on the strength of a main dike of the River Lek in the Netherlands, using the GIS-based strength analysis method developed by Fugro (FAST4DMAP© ). FAST4DMAP is the abbreviation for Fugro Analysis of Strength of dikes in 4 Dimensions on MAP. The method is based on a combination of surface and subsurface data

50

(elevation, soil layers, groundwater levels, etc.) and geotechnical calculations on strength. The outcome of such an analysis is called a strength characteristic of the dike. The strength characteristic is a table with changing strength parameters in time (4th dimension) and is used for sensitivity analyses of mechanisms that cause dikes to collapse. Practically the method provides managers with the opportunity to predict the risks of dike collapse in cases of High Water events on the River Lek. The Pilot study focuses on the two main mechanisms that might cause the dikes of the River Lek to collapse. The surface data, acquired using Helicopter Laser Altimetry (Fugro's FLI-MAP system) provide a Digital Terrain Model (DTM). The subsurface data consists of geological data, bore hole logs and Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs). In a GIS (ArcView), several grid analyses and strengths calculations were carried out using this data. The strength characteristic, constructed with the combination of the DTM, the GIS-analysis and Geotechnical Calculations, provides the Waterboard `De Stichtse Rijnlanden' with the possibility to predict the effects of changing water levels or natural or human interventions in the subsoil, on the strength of the dikes of the River Lek.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: M.T. (Martin) van der Meer (M.Sc.) Head Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Fugro Ingenieursbureau B.V., The Netherlands After finishing his B.Sc.-degree in Civil Engineering in Alkmaar, The Netherlands, Martin started working for the Hydraulic Engineering Department of the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the Delft University of Technology. He combined the work at the University with a study on Civil Engineering (M.Sc.). He finished his M.Sc.-degree on Civil Engineering with honours in 1988. Since then, Martin is employed at Fugro Ingenieursbureau B.V., The Netherlands, and since 1997 as Head of the Department of Hydraulic engineering he is responsible for projects at the interface of geoscience and hydraulic engineering. Martin is an international well known expert on safety assessment and reinforcement of levee systems. He is involved in various initiatives and studies on water, geoscience and safety and initiator of the strength analyses method FAST4DMAP© (Fugro Analysis STrength of levees in 4 Dimensions on MAP). He is a member of several national advisory committees and task groups on water defenses. Since 1st March 2006, Martin is also part-time lecturer Geo Risk Management of the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the Delft Technical University.

51

B-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Cost Effective Approaches and QA/AC Initiataives Sponsored By: G & O Moderator: Frank R. Finch, PE, Greenhorne & O'Mara Cost Effective Approaches to Mapping Flood Hazards Behind Levees that Cannot be Certified

Vince DiCamillo, CFM, Water Resources Division, Greenhorne & O'Mara William Blanton, Jr., CFM, Chief Engineering Management Section, FEMA Kevin Donnelly, P.E., CFM, Senior Project Manager, Greenhorne & O'Mara Abstract

In the early 1980s, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established a policy regarding the mapping of flood hazards in areas protected by levees. For an area to be credited with protection from a levee, the levee must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to contain the one-percent annual chance (100-year) flood. The specific requirements are addressed in 65.10 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations. As FEMA updates the Nation's flood maps through the Map Modernization Program, levees shown as providing protection from 100-year flooding on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map will be checked for compliance with the FEMA requirements. Those levees that cannot be certified by a Federal Agency or meet the technical requirements of 65.10 must be mapped to show the flooding conditions that would exist if the levee failed. The cost of conducting this additional investigation could impact the overall budget for Map Modernization and result in delays in meeting the map production goals for Map Modernization. This paper will address the common challenges and present cost effective approaches that can be used to identify and map flood hazards behind uncertified levees. Multiple approaches will be explored including both detailed and approximate study methodologies. The paper will also address situations where existing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) back up data is not readily available.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Vince DiCamillo Vince DiCamillo, CFM, is Vice President of Greenhorne & O'Mara's (G&O's) Water Resources Division. He has more than 30 years of experience in FEMA's mapping program. He currently directs all of G&O's FIS and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) production efforts supporting FEMA's Flood Map Modernization Initiative. Vince also serves as the lead subject matter expert on FEMA's Systems Engineering & Technical Assistance (SETA) contract, which is tasked with providing independent verification and validation of FEMA's Map Modernization Program.

52

Cost Effective Approaches to Structure Surveys for Limited Detailed Studies

Dave Guignet, PE, CFM, Water Resources Engineer, Maryland Dept of Environment Justin King, CFM, , Water Resources Engineer, Greenhorne & O'Mara Abstract

Updating floodplain studies and mapping for the nation is a daunting task, and despite significant Federal funding and State and Local cost-sharing, insufficient funds exist to study all streams using detailed study methods. Limited detailed studies have proven to be more cost effective in areas of moderate to low flood risk. Limited detailed studies have greater value when hydraulic structures, such as bridges and culverts can be included in the modeling. This paper will describe some very cost effective approaches being used in Maryland and North Carolina to capture this data in the field using GIS technologies so the data can be easily uploaded for use by those conducting the hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) modeling. The paper will also address how this data fits into the FEMA Data Capture Standards.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Dave Guignet Dave Guignet, PE, CFM, has served the last 8 years as a Water Resources Engineer at the Maryland Department of the Environment dealing with (Non-tidal Wetlands) and Waterway Construction Activities / Floodplain Analysis / and Digital Floodplain Mapping. Prior to that position, he served 8 years as a Water Resources Engineer at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources reviewing (Non-tidal Wetlands) and Waterway Construction Permits related to Floodplain Activities. He also served 10 years s a Highway Engineer at Maryland State Highway Administration in Highway Hydraulics and Consultant Engineering. Dave holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering and an Associate Degree in Surveying Technology.

QA/QC Inspection of DFIRM Databases through Automated and Visual Procedures

Mike McGinn, CFM, Lead GIS Analyst, Harvard Design & Mapping Adejoké Ige, CFM, Senior GIS Specialist, Greenhorne & O'Mara Pamela Mock, Project Manager, Greenhorne & O'Mara Abstract

The independent QA/QC inspection of DFIRM databases and referencing of the DFIRM plots has created a challenge for both the inspection firm Harvard Design & Mapping (HDM) and the Mapping Partners. HDM is contracted to provide this independent QA/QC inspection through both automated and visual processes. This presentation will cover the current QA/QC process and will describe the 2007 improvement initiatives developed by HDM. The overall inspection process has three phases. The first phase of the inspection is "Format". This automated program checks the DFIRM submission for the metadata file and the necessary database tables required for the database review. The second phase of the inspection is "Auto Screen." This automated

53

program, conducted during both the preliminary and post-preliminary phases of map production, runs over one hundred automated checks of the DFIRM database submission for adherence to Appendix L of the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications. The third phase of the inspection is "Visual Screen." This visual process is conducted only during the post-preliminary phase of the map production timeline. During this phase, Technicians and Analysts visually inspect the DFIRM data for adherence to Appendices K and L of the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications and check for consistency with the DFIRM plot image. To help the Mapping Partners through the inspection process, HDM has invested time and resources in explaining the Auto Screen and Visual Screen procedures, conducting internal reviews of their capabilities, and upgrading their methodologies and systems. Greenhorne & O'Mara will provide an objective account of the Mapping Partner experience, lessons learned and a few tips and tricks for successfully passing the QA/QC reviews.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mike McGinn Mike McGinn, CFM, is a Lead GIS Analyst with Harvard Design & Mapping, specializing in database and mapping quality assurance and program management review. Mr. McGinn has over five years work experience with the National Flood Insurance Program and floodplain mapping. Mr. McGinn has a certificate in GIS from the Pennsylvania State University and a B.A. in History from Emory & Henry College. In addition to ASFPM membership, Mr. McGinn is also a member of the Association of American Geographers.

54

B-7 Floodplain Mapping: Application ­ Map Changes Moderator: Andrew M. Rooke, PE, CFM, TCB Around the FIRM in 90 Days: How To Get Your (C)LOMR Through the First Time

Delton (Del) S. Schwalls, P.E., CFM, Environmental Engineer, CDM Abstract

The Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) processes are used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to incorporate construction and better data into Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) without having to republish the complete map panel. Per the timetable set forth in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, upon receipt of a submittal FEMA is allowed 90 days to review the information and either issue approval or request additional data. The typical CLOMR or LOMR submittal will involve two data requests: one initial request for regulatory issues and/or an incomplete submittal, and one for technical comments. Since each data request can add up to 180 days to the review and approval process (90 days for the requester to respond and 90 days for the follow-up review), the cumulative time for issuance of a CLOMR or LOMR can very easily extend beyond a year. In addition, many CLOMRs and LOMRs include numerous data requests, as the submittal is refined to meet FEMA standards. With each data request potentially adding half a year to the timeframe, development and improvement projects can quickly fall behind and budgets, originally thought to be more than sufficient, can be slowly eroded away. Many times the requester of the map revision gives up, the request is forgotten about after extended periods of no progress, or projects and development continue without completing the required FEMA process. The inherent cause of these lengthy timeframes is not technically-inaccurate submittals, incompetent requesters, excessively stringent standards, or over-zealous reviewers. The issue is a lack in understanding of the (C)LOMR review process, the regulations governing approval, and the policies mandated by FEMA. Many of these requirements are unique to the FEMA (C)LOMR process, and thus not included in a standard flood study or stormwater system analysis as required by local or regional permitting agencies. The key to ensuring that your (C)LOMR is approved expeditiously is to be familiar with and understand the review process and requirements. This goes beyond being able to check off required items from a list, and extends to a comprehension of the "hows" and the "whys" of the constraints. For 3 ½ years, I reviewed (C)LOMRs and studies for FEMA as part of the Map Coordination Contract (MCC). Since leaving the MCC, I have repeatedly submitted (C)LOMRs to FEMA without receiving comments. This is not due to being an expert in hydrologic and hydraulic modeling or floodplain analysis; it is due to a thorough comprehension of the process, regulations, and policies. This presentation will attempt to quantify the common issues that arise, and thus cause data requests to be issued, during the (C)LOMR review process. It will identify frequent errors made when attempting to meet regulatory and notification requirements, common misconceptions of the standards and policies, and the technical issues that are the "deal-breakers" of a FEMA flood study. The purpose of this presentation is to attempt to assist requesters in more accurately meeting FEMA standards when first submitting a (C)LOMR. This will reduce the number of data requests issued by FEMA and thus save time, money, and frustration for all parties involved. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Delton (Del) S. Schwalls Delton (Del) S. Schwalls, P.E., CFM, Environmental Engineer, CDM, Orlando, Florida Mr. Schwalls is an environmental engineer with more than six years of experience in hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, floodplain management and permitting, and stormwater design. He has developed and

55

expanded municipal stormwater master plans, prepared site-design and stormwater management plans for roadway expansion and development projects, and performed both large and small-scale flood hazard studies. Previously, he spent 3½ years on the FEMA Map Coordination Contract, reviewing Letters of Map Revision and Studies. Mr. Schwalls received a B.S. in Environmental Engineering from Mercer University. He has been with CDM since May 2005, and prior to that, was with PBS&J since March 2001. His background includes hydrologic modeling, steady and unsteady hydraulic modeling, levee and dam systems analysis, stormwater management, and permitting. Mr. Schwalls is a registered Professional Engineer and a Certified Floodplain Manager.

Local Ownership of Floodplain Maps Through LOMC Pilot Program

David Goode, P.E., CFM, Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program William Tingle, PG, CFM, Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program Abstract

Local communities have a vested interest in maintaining accurate and up-to-day floodplain maps and flood information. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina contributed $2,000,000 to develop a new Flood Insurance Study ("FIS") and Flood Insurance Rate Maps ("FIRMs") which became effective in 2004. The FIS and FIRMs are being updated by the issuance of letters of map change ("LOMCs") by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"). Historically, FEMA has reviewed and processed Letters of Map Change (LOMCs) for local communities. FEMA delegated the authority to the Denver Urban Drainage District to review and process LOMCs in 2001. The Denver Urban Drainage District includes 40 NFIP communities. On July 1, 2006 the Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program was delegated the authority by FEMA to locally process LOMCs. Through the FEMA Pilot program Mecklenburg County is reviewing and processing conditional letters of map change ("CLOMR") and final letters of map change ("LOMR"). The Mecklenburg County Flood Mitigation Program ("MCFMP") has responsibility for managing the floodplains in 8 NFIP communities. The delegation of authority to review and process LOMCs enables Mecklenburg County to become more active in managing the changes to the FIS and FIRMs. There are significant advantages to allowing a local community to process LOMCs. The local community has the ability to meet with applicants before and during the process. The local community has extensive knowledge of the local floodplains and can make site visits to the projects when questions arise. The MCFMP is responsible for all aspects of floodplain management in Mecklenburg County. The Floodplain Administrator for all of the NFIP communities in the county is a member of the MCFMP. This creates a unique situation because the Floodplain Administrator must sign the Community Acknowledgement on the FEMA MT-2 form to begin the formalized process for requesting a LOMC. The MCFMP is required to review and process the LOMC in the same manner as the FEMA. This includes using the Mapping Information Platform to track and store data associated with the request. This Pilot Program with FEMA has provided challenges to the MCFMP as well as advantages for the citizens of Mecklenburg County.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Goode Mr. Goode joined the staff of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services in March 2005. Mr. Goode received his BA from UNC-Chapel Hill in 1985, JD from Washington & Lee University in 1990, and his BS in Civil Engineering from UNC-Charlotte in 1996. He has over sixteen years experience in the

56

regulatory and engineering fields. Mr. Goode is responsible for processing conditional and final Letters of Map Revision, reviewing proposed development in the regulatory floodway, maintaining the countywide digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps and administering Mecklenburg County's Cooperating Technical Partner program.

Management of Levee Certification in FEMA Region VI

David Patterson, P.E., CFM, Engineering Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Phil Nguyen, GIS Specialist, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Jack Quarles, Senior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region VI Abstract

Levee certification has moved to the forefront of activities necessary to be addressed in the development of new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps as part of Map Modernization. The impact of levee certification on Map Modernization is enormous. In FEMA Region VI, half of the total population in the region is located within counties/parishes currently under study that also include levees. Obstacles include the determination of ownership, conveying maintenance and documentation requirements, and the consequences of neglecting the certification. The tasks have included the facilitation of a joint effort of many diverse groups working together, along with keeping congressional staff members informed. One of the goals of the management tool is the timely acquisition of certifications so as not to delay the release of the new DFIRMs. To facilitate the Region's efforts, a management tool utilizing GIS and database software was created to track all associated activities. This database is used to compile all applicable data regarding each levee and to geospatially reference all levees identified as providing protection on the effective FIRMs. In addition, it was set up to be able to merge all applicable data into the USACE and FEMA national inventory databases once they are developed. In addition to the final information needed by the national database, there is a considerable amount of correspondence and outreach among all parties involved with obtaining the certifications and supporting documentation. This correspondence information is also being tracked in the database. With the release of Procedure Memorandum 43, Provisionally Accredited Levees (PAL), additional options are now available to the levee owners; the database was adapted to allow for tracking activities of PAL levees through the 2year certification period. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Patterson David Patterson is the Engineering Manager of Michael Baker's Denton, Texas office. He has 26 years of experience as a water resources engineer; the last 9 with the FEMA mapping program. He has a BSCE from the University of Colorado and a MSIE from the University of Houston. His experience includes the preparation of master plans and the analysis, design, and management of a wide variety of water resources and flood control projects.

57

B-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Stormwater Drainage System Moderator: Jake San Antonio, CFM, ENSR Storm Drain Watershed Planning in Fort Worth, TX

Joseph T. Barrow, PE, CFM, Senior Water Resources Manager, Halff Associates Steven Eubanks, PE, Storm Water Engineer, City of Fort Worth Sam Hinojosa, EIT, Graduate Engineer, Halff Associates Mike Crenshaw, PE, CFM, Project Manager, Halff Associates

Abstract

As a result of major flood damages that have occurred over the last several years, the City of Fort Worth, Texas has embarked on a program to improve its drainage including many of its major underground storm drain systems which significantly undersized. The City identified the five most critical storm drain systems and contracted with Halff Associates and four other firms to develop comprehensive improvement plans for each system with Halff Associates providing overall coordination and performing the assessment and plan of improvements for one of the five systems. The system specifically assigned to Halff Associates is known as the Henderson Street Storm Drain Watershed and drains approximately 600 acres of fully developed area in the City's Central Business District and its main Hospital District. The existing Henderson Street Storm Drain system dates back to about 1910 beginning with rock arch storm sewers laid along a previously existing gully crossing current city block alignments. More recent improvements and relief lines have followed street patterns, creating diversions and bifurcations in the system. A major interstate freeway crossing the central portion of the watershed has added additional impervious cover and drainage facilities. The general scope of work for each watershed included surveying and mapping, television-based physical assessment, detailed modeling, developing a plan of improvements and incorporating findings into the City's GIS database. The computer model selected for the modeling and evaluation of improvements is the EPA Storm Water Management Model Version 5.0. This selection was a consensus of the City staff and the five consultants because of its capability to simulate complex underground systems which included surface ponding and overflows plus its capability to interface with the City GIS database. The paper will include details of the general project approach used for all five study areas and the specific application to the Henderson Street Storm Drain System. Planned follow-up work, including the phased construction of the recommended improvements as well as additional studies of upstream reaches of the watersheds, will be funded by a recently enacted City drainage utility fee. This subject area is most relevant to the conference theme of reducing flood damages using state of the art modeling and GIS application techniques.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Joe Barrow Joe Barrow is a registered Civil Engineer in Texas and Colorado, a Registered Professional Land Surveyor in Texas and a Certified Floodplain Manager. Joe received a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees from the University of Houston. Joe's professional career extends over 41 years and includes service with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and two different consulting firms. He is currently employed by Halff Associates as a Senior Water Resources Manager in their Fort Worth, Texas office. Joe's experience covers a wide range of water resources projects from small land development projects to major projects for the Corps of Engineers and FEMA. He has served as a Regional Director for the Texas Floodplain Management Association as well as several ASFPM technical committees and is a Fellow and Life Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

58

Shockoe Creek Combined Sewer System Flood Study

Sam Crampton, Water Resources Engineer, Dewberry John N. Paine, P.E., PH, CFM, URS Corporation Nikki L. Roberts, P.E., Civil Engineer, FEMA Region III Abstract

Starting on August 30, 2004, Tropical Storm Gaston dropped over 12 inches of rain on the Richmond, Virginia area. The resultant flooding devastated the Shockoe Bottom area, killing 8 people and inundating numerous homes and businesses located there. Some structures were flooded to their second floor. The area was declared a major disaster by President Bush on September 3, 2004. Rainfall totals for Gaston in the Richmond area were reported by the National Hurricane Center to be from 6.68 inches at the Richmond airport to more than 12 inches at two other sites in the city. Most of this rain fell in a roughly 8 hour period demonstrating that this storm was arguably greater than a 0.01% annual chance (1000-year) event. Early in the 20th century, a large portion of Shockoe Creek and its tributaries were converted into a closed conduit system combining the sanitary sewer and storm water together in a network of concrete and stone conduits. This enabled the busy city of Richmond to be developed over the top of the closed system. The closed system is able to contain most storm water flows without surcharging although larger flow events overburden the closed system resulting in overland flow and flooding. A floodwall protects this part of the city from flooding on the James River, but does not help when Shockoe Creek overflows. This floodwall provides a false sense of security to local residents, many of whom were unaware of the threat posed by Shockoe Creek. The Shockoe Creek basin did not show any Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rater Maps (FIRMS) and this resulted in developments in the path of the old creek bed which have become prone to flooding when the combined sewer system is overburdened. Numerous losses have occurred outside of the SFHA, where flood insurance is not a mandatory requirement. Losses were particularly profound following tropical storm Gaston, prompting FEMA to undertake a project designed to identify detailed flood elevations and floodplain delineations for the Shockoe Creek basin. Due to the complexity of the Shockoe Creek basin, it was necessary to use a hydrodynamic unsteady flow model to identify flood conditions and the interaction between both the closed system and the resultant overland flow. XP-SWMM was chosen to model both the closed system and overland flow portion of the basin. GIS was an essential component in the creation of the XP-SWMM model. GIS data was available from the City of Richmond showing the location, size and shape of all the major conduits in the basin. This was converted into an ArcGIS geometric network which had the built in intelligence to allow flow direction and flow loops to be identified. The HydroID concept, used in the Arc Hydro data model was used to uniquely identify each component of the model and any additional GIS features that were used to generate model parameters. Database queries were used to generate XP-SWMM XPX format export files which created the physical link between the GIS system and the XP-SWMM model. For the overland flow portion of the model and for any open channel areas of the model, HEC GeoRAS was used to generate the cross section data in a HEC-RAS model. This allowed the terrain data to be processed and various hydraulic parameters to be automatically calculated before being automatically imported into XP-SWMM and converted to links.

59

The models indicated that the combined sewer system would just start to be overburdened with a 10% annual chance (10-year) flood event and that although not as severe as the Gaston event, the 1% annual chance flood (100-year) would still result in significant flooding of insurable structures. The resultant flood recovery maps developed as a deliverable of the project will be used by the city to guide reconstruction efforts and to ensure that new development is built to safer standards than previous structures. The maps will also serve to increase awareness of flood risk in an area that many residents considered to be safe prior to Gaston. The flood recovery maps were created with Dewberry's GeoFIRM system using ArcSDE and Microsoft SQL server. Each feature class on the maps was created to FEMA's DFIRM standards which will allow for the easy creation of DIFRMs in the future when required by FEMA for a city-wide physical map revision to the FIRMs. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Sam Crampton Sam Crampton is a Water Resources Engineer with Dewberry in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Crampton graduated from Loughborough University in the United Kingdom with a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering in 2001. He has six years of experience specializing hydrologic and hydraulic modeling while working both with Dewberry and previously with HR Wallingford (UK). While working at Dewberry, Mr. Crampton has specialized in the implementation and development of GIS in hydraulic and hydrologic modeling including HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, EPA-SWMM and XP-SWMM models using ArcGIS.

The Twin Cities `Old Faithful' ­ Finding Solutions to the I-35W Tunnel Flooding Issues

David Filipiak, PE, Principal, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Abstract

The Twin Cities landscape contains a plethora of features, all woven together by natural resources that have been preserved in a variety of fashions. Below this landscape lies a geological regime that provides a perfect setting for a variety of underground uses, as a thick sandstone layer underlies the limestone bedrock. City fathers in the Twin Cities found this layer quite inviting and cost effective for construction of tunnels to carry both storm water and sanitary effluent from the surface to the Mississippi River and treatment facilities respectively. Much of the storm water in the south Minneapolis area drains to the Mississippi River via storm tunnels. The I-35W storm Tunnel, also referred to as the Minneapolis storm drain tunnel, runs south to north, draining approximately 4.9 square miles of ultra urban landscape prior to discharging to the river under the I-35W bridge. Mn/DOT and the City of Minneapolis commissioned a study to evaluate the hydrology and hydraulics of the storm sewer system draining to the I-35W tunnel as well as the tunnel hydraulics. The system has exhibited conveyance issues for years including seven flood areas identified in the 1997 Minneapolis Flood Report, flooding at 42nd Street in the I-35W corridor, and `geysers' at the tunnel dropshaft at 35th Street. The study involved the following elements: · · · Construction of an existing XP-SWMM model, incorporating over 1,500 nodes and 3,100 links. Calibration of the model using available rainfall and flow data, as well as matching observed flood areas. Evaluating various solutions for their ability to meet design objectives for both the City of

60

· ·

Minneapolis and Mn/DOT, as well as to meet short term (construction/funding/etc) and long term (maintainability/meet future needs/etc) objectives. Hydraulic modeling, constructability and cost estimates for the proposed solutions. Working with a technical advisory committee and a public task force to discuss observations and potential solutions.

The presentation will include a discussion of existing issues for the tunnel and will present the various solutions that would solve the complex array of flooding and hydraulic problems. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Filipiak, P.E. David has been involved with water resources for what seems like a lifetime. Starting with the neighborhood curbside popsicle stick races near the banks of the St. Croix River, to his days at the University of Minnesota, to managing the water resources group at SRF, he has been connected with moving water ­ and continues to be fascinated by it (just ask his daughters!).

61

SESSION C TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 3:45 P.M. ­ 5:15 P.M.

C-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): How Adverse Is Adverse?

Moderator: David O. Odegard, CFM, CPCU, FEMA Region III

NFIP Ordinance Updates ­ Now is the Time to Adopt No Adverse Impact

Christy Miller, CFM, Program Manager, Tetra Tech, Inc. Abstract

No Adverse Impact (NAI) floodplain management is where the action of one property owner does not adversely impact the rights of other property owners, as measured by increased flood peaks, flood stage, flood velocity, erosion and sedimentation. As many counties and cities enter the map adoption stage, local and State officials need to be looking beyond the NFIP minimums that 44 CFR 60.3 (a), (b), (c), (d) provide, at how to put the core engineering principles that form the basis of No Adverse Impact into regulatory practice or as Best Management Practice applications. Each one of the existing 60.3 regulations will be examined to see how they are or could better apply the NAI approach, for example: · · Many of the more rural areas of the nation or upper reaches of watersheds continue to develop and will continue to struggle with Un-number A Zones, or known or potentially flood prone areas with no maps or no BFEs determined. In addition to developing BFEs as development is proposed, require BFEs to be calculated for all up and downstream adjacent "neighbors" in the reach where the development would cause any change in the BFE­ require developers to perform sufficient H&H analysis to determine all impacts ­ and compensate for them, before permitting project(s). Obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State, or other source... [44 CFR 60.3(b)(4)]. Here's where NAI comes in ­ Go above the BFE for both residential and non-residential (I have yet to see a "flood proofed" structure stay completely damage free). Expand the prohibition of any encroachments that would result in any increase in flood levels during occurrence of the base flood discharge to the entire floodplain.

·

Presenter will work with ASFPM, and draw from her own experience assisting communities to add local examples: · · · Communities that have said "no floodplain development" - the preferred NAI approach but not always a viable local option; to techniques that are being used to avoid impacts, measurement tools and monitoring approaches to measure erosion and sedimentation. How Depth/Velocity Curves are being used to widen the `no build zones'

62

NAI could be extended to entire watersheds as a means to promote the use of retention/detention or other techniques to mitigate increased runoff from urban areas ­ do we have the tools we need to get there? How well are we doing in extreme rainfall events/seasons The presenter will encourage this be an interactive discussion to see what locals are doing, and what local officials need to make NAI work in terms of measuring flood peaks, stage, velocity, erosion and sedimentation; and where professionals can assist ASFPM in compiling model Best Management Practices and higher standards to continue to assist local governments in bringing NAI into every community. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Christy Miller Christy Miller, CFM, currently co-Chairs the No Adverse Impact Committee for ASFPM. After nearly 30 years serving as Alaska State Coordinating Officer for the National Flood Insurance Program, Ms. Miller retired January 1, 2007 and continues to assist communities in floodplain management and flood mitigation as a consultant.

"The Curse of Minimum Standards"

Dale Hoff, CFM, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region VI Linda Delamare, CFM, Natural Hazards Program Specialist FEMA Region VI Abstract

When Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968, it was their intent to (1) establish an insurance based program where policy premiums would help pay for flood damages rather than the tax payer, and (2) participating communities would be responsible for adopting and enforcing at least a minimum level of development standards to be eligible for flood insurance to be sold within their jurisdictions. Over the past years, there have been many changes and additions to the insurance arm of the NFIP. Program policies have been changed. New programs like the Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Programs have been developed to address mitigating strategies and make additional flood insurance benefits available to property owners. On the other hand, the development standards established in 1968, those provisions that were established to keep people and property out of harm's way have remained relatively unchanged. The minimum standards for development in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), as mandated by Congress, are thought by most to be sufficient to allow a community to participate in the NFIP. In rural or isolated communities, the minimum standards may serve them well. But even in these communities, it is possible to develop in the SFHA and place people and property in harm's way ­ legally. In many of our nation's communities, the minimum standards of enforcing floodplain development provisions are not good enough. In fact, they may even give those communities and their citizens a false sense of security ­ one that could lead them into situations of higher risk to flooding. With the recent explosion in U.S. population in the south and west, more and more people are moving to the coasts and into inland SFHAs. As those areas become more congested, we find that the minimum standards of managing local floodplains are not providing the level of protection desired or expected. For instance, communities are not required to account for development outside the SFHA. As a result, the construction of subdivisions and commercial structures in non-SFHA areas creates more runoff to the streams and rivers below them. Maps are not revised to reflect the increased flood levels and velocities, so the increase in flood risk is passively accepted. Downstream structures that are shown to be outside the SFHA now flood with average storms.

63

During this presentation, we will discuss the importance and advantages of adopting and enforcing higher standards in those communities that would benefit. A handout will also be distributed which will describe selected higher provisions, the pros and cons for each, and include suggested wording for adoption in the local ordinance. Communities will then be able to understand, select, and adopt the higher provisions that will meet their unique needs. This presentation will fit comfortably in Track 1, NAI or Track 5, NFIP Issues. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Dale Hoff, CFM Dale Hoff is a Natural Hazards Program Specialist in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) at FEMA Region VI, Denton, TX. Since 1996, he has worked with Texas cities and counties to ensure they were compliant with their local management of the provisions of the NFIP. He has also developed and instructed several NFIP courses at FEMA's Emergency Management Institute (EMI) in Emmitsburg, Maryland and in Region VI states. He has been on the FEMA Region VI staff for 23 years and is a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM). He represented FEMA Region VI on the Texas Blue Ribbon Committee that was established in order to determine better ways for Texas to conduct its emergency management programs as well as provide the needed support to local communities in their respective NFIP activities. He participated in several disaster deployments including the Loma Prieta Earthquake, Northridge Earthquake, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki, Oklahoma City bombing, Tropical Storm Allison, and more recently, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Dale Hoff holds a Masters Degree in Public Services and has done graduate work in Public Administration. FEMA Region VI 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209 (940) 898-5225 FAX (940) 898-5195 [email protected] dhs.gov

Does "No Adverse" Mean "Zero"?

Theodore E. DeBaene, P.E., CFM, Vice President, Owen and White, Inc. Abstract

No Adverse Impact (NAI) floodplain management is an approach that ensures the action of any community or property owner, public or private does not adversely impact the property and rights of others. In the ASFPM vernacular, it pertains only to stormwater management. Other impacts, no matter how obnoxious are not part of this initiative. Most potential adverse impacts relate to changes in land use or infrastructure anywhere in the watershed. These could be residential or commercial development, construction of bridges and culverts, and even channel improvements. These activities will all produce impacts. The determination of whether they are adverse depends on the consequences of the impact. If there is a small increase in water surface elevation across a barren

64

landscape, it is like the tree falling in the forest ­ who cares! If the same increase is in a residential area and would cause the flooding of several additional homes, then the impact is adverse. Impact tolerance can be allowed for some basins but not for others. Fortunately, this apparent discriminatory practice is perfectly legitimate. In fact, it is preferred. The key element is that the community sets the standards and does not deviate. It is important that these standards are part of a living document which corrects deficiencies and addresses changes in land use and infrastructure. So Does "No Adverse" Mean "Zero"? PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Theodore E. DeBaene BS Civil Engineering ­ University of Notre Dame M B A ­ Wayne State University P. E. ­ Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi CFM ­ 2000 33 years experience in Floodplain Analysis 13 years experience with Drainage Impact Studies Louisiana Floodplain Management Association Chair, 2002-2004 ASFPM Stormwater Management Committee Chair & CoChair, 2000-2006 ASFPM NAI Steering Committee ­ 2001 to Present

65

C-2 New Perspectives In Hurricanes and Recovery: Surge In General

Moderator: Doug Marcy, NOAA Coastal Services Center/NWS

Visualizing the Temporal and Spatial Extent of Hurricane Surge

Robert R. Mason, Jr., Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Dean Gesch, U.S. Geological Survey Ben McGee, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey D. Phil Turnipseed, P.E., Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Abstract

Historically, hurricane-induced storm-surge has been documented after the event through analysis of flood evidence such as structural or vegetative damage, debris piles, high-water marks, and eye-witness accounts. However, these sources rarely provide quantitative information about the timing and duration of the flooding or the sequencing of multiple overland routes by which the storm-surge waters arrived. In response to these deficiencies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed and deployed an experimental storm-surge network. As Hurricane Rita approached the Texas and Louisiana coasts in September 2005, the USGS deployed 32 water-level and 14 barometric pressure sensors to record the magnitude, extent, and timing of hurricane storm surge and coastal flooding. Sensors were located at distances ranging from a few hundred feet to approximately 30 miles inland and covered an area of approximately 4,000 square miles (http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/ds220). Of the 32 locations where water-level sensors were deployed, significant inundation occurred at 24. Water-level data for these sites were recorded every 30 seconds from just prior to landfall early on September 24 to several days later. Utilizing these data and a geographic information system, threedimensional surfaces, and contour maps were constructed to depict various aspects of the storm-surge. These visualization tools show the arrival of the storm surge dome as it passed over the beaches and inland areas as well as an indication of the influence of topography and landfall location on the extent, depth, and the relative speed by which storm-surge waters penetrated inland areas. The maximum elevations of the fitted data were also contoured to temporally and spatially estimate water surface elevations. Maximum water surface elevations were also subtracted from a LIDAR digital-elevation model to determine maximum water depths throughout the innundated area. Overlaying this information on other visualizations of hurricane impact, such as beach erosion and housing damage reports, could ultimately help emergency managers and resource planners to better understand surge mechanisms; help engineers to design more robust infrastructure, and assist insurance agents in assessing and settling insurance claims. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Robert Mason Robert Mason is the Deputy Chief of USGS Office of Surface Water. He coordinates the USGS storm surge-monitoring program and was involved in data collection efforts related to Hurricane Rita and Wilma.

66

Synthetic Tropical Cyclone Generation for Assessing Coastal Flooding

David Froehlich, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Engineering, Woolpert, Inc. Abstract

Coastal flooding is affected by both the local waves and the level of the underlying still water upon which they are formed. The still water level, in turn, depends upon the varying astronomic tide and the possible contribution of a transient storm surge. The wave characteristics that control runup include amplitude, period, and direction, all of which depend upon the meteorological characteristics of the generating storm including its location and its time-varying wind and pressure fields. A mathematical model capable of simulating the tracks and central pressure histories of tropical cyclones affecting the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States is described. The modeling approach assumes that each tropical cyclone is an independent realization of the same underlying stochastic process. Relatively simple autoregressive models are used for the time series of latitude, longitude, and central pressure. The model is used to generate a large database of synthetic storms whose statistical characteristics are shown to simulate those of the population of real storms. Each synthetic storm can be used, in conjunction with a separately developed wind field model, to drive numerical models for computing wave heights and water levels, including storm surges. In this way, the sample size available for estimating extreme wave heights and water levels is greatly increased. Previous risk assessments fit standard distribution functions to parameters defining all historical storms coming within a specified radius of a point of interest, and then, drawing randomly from such distributions, using standard models of the radial structure of storms, together with translation speed and landfall information, to estimate the maximum wind achieved. A drawback of this approach is that estimates of the frequency of high-intensity events are sensitive to the shape of the tail of the assumed distribution, which are defined with a high degree of uncertainty. Here we use statistical properties of historical tracks and intensities to generate a large number of synthetic storms in the North Atlantic basin. Six-hour changes in direction, translation speed, and intensity along each track were modeled as linear functions of previous values of those quantities as well as position and sea surface temperature. A similar approach was taken by Casson and Coles (2000), though they generated synthetic tracks by randomly perturbing historical storm tracks, and simulated intensity along each track by drawing randomly from the whole collection of storms over water. We follow Vickery et al. (2000) in generating large numbers of tracks, but use different techniques to accomplish this. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Froehlich David develops and applies numerical models that simulate surface-water and groundwater flow, sediment transport in rivers, stormwater runoff, and hydrologic performance of wetlands. Increasingly, these simulation tools are being used as components of decision support systems for assessing flood hazards and as computational elements of optimization models for designing stormwater management controls. David also carries out laboratory and field experiments used to test numerical model predictive abilities and to improve understanding of fundamental aspects of surface-water flow and sediment transport. From time to time, he has opportunities to apply his limited knowledge, skills, and abilities to evaluate real topics that make him feel good about being a civil engineer.

67

Breaking New Ground in FEMA Storm Surge Studies

Michael Anderson, Program Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Zachary Toups, Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Jack Quarles, Sennior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region VI Abstract

In August 2005, FEMA Region VI initiated a coastal storm surge study on several Gulf Coast counties and parishes in Texas and Louisiana as a part of Map Modernization. The effective coastal analysis for these areas dates from the late 1970's and is outdated due to subsidence, wetlands loss, enhanced topographic data, the availability of additional historical storm data, and technology advancements. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made landfall, a plethora of new, highly accurate data became available and the need for new coastal analyses increased substantially. Thirty-one Gulf Coast parishes and counties will have new parish-or countywide DFIRM's with a new coastal analysis in FEMA Region VI. The United States Army Corps of Engineers ­ New Orleans District (USACE-MVD) is preparing the storm surge analyses to be used by other contractors in the coastal wave height mapping efforts on each study. The Advanced CIRCulation (ADCIRC) model was used to model the storm surge generated by various historical and hypothetical tropical storms and hurricanes. The ADCIRC model took approximately 12 hours to simulate one storm on a supercomputer. A frequency analysis was conducted on the storm surge results to determine the 1% chance storm surge elevation for more than 15,000 locations throughout coastal Louisiana. A stage frequency curve showing the stillwater elevation for various frequencies was developed for each of the points. This study developed advanced technical procedures and truly broke new ground in performing coastal storm surge analyses.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY:

Michael Anderson Michael Anderson is the Region VI Regional Management Center Program Manager for Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in the Denton, TX office. Mr. Anderson has nine years of experience as a water resources engineer specializing in federal projects. Mr. Anderson earned a BS and MS in Civil Engineering from Texas Tech University. Mr. Anderson is a registered professional engineer in Texas and is also a Certified Floodplain Manager. Mr. Anderson is currently responsible for the success of the Map Modernization Program in FEMA Region VI.

68

C-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Flood Mitigation Planning (I)

Moderator: Chad Berginnis, CFM, OEMA ­ Mitigation Branch

Silver Jackets ­ Many Agencies One Solution Reducing Risk

Nancy Olson, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region V Tammy Conforti, Civil Engineer, Insitute for Water Resources Abstract

The planning and implementation of preventive solutions to natural disasters have typically been achieved through individual agency processes and procedures. Even though many agencies and local governments have been successful with maintaining strong partnerships, overall national interagency collaboration on pre-disaster activities has been intermittent. There is opportunity to bring together all the key players and take what is learned from responding to natural hazard events and incorporate those lessons into planning measures to reduce risks to life and property. This has to be a combined effort. Not one single agency will have the 100% solution. During these times of constrained resources, it has become even more crucial to leverage programs. Instead of competing for the same resources, agencies should be working together to prioritize the use of these resources for long-term comprehensive solutions. The Silver Jackets Program provides a more formal and consistent strategy for implementing an interagency approach to planning and implementing measures to mitigate the risks associated with natural hazards. The primary goals are to leverage information and resources, improve public risk communication through a united effort, and create a mechanism to collaboratively solve issues and implement mitigation initiatives. This program proposes establishing an interagency team for each state with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator, and the State Hazard Mitigation Officer as standing members and lead facilitators. The lead facilitators will work together to keep key stakeholders involved, the team focused, and help set team priorities. The Silver Jackets initiative was piloted in Ohio. The State of Ohio pilot demonstrated that this initiative can work. The agencies participating in the pilot included Economic Development Administration (EDA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Ohio Emergency Management Agency (OEMA), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), US Geological Survey (USGS). This session is designed to introduce and educate the attendee on the Silver Jackets concept, discuss the Pilot project in Ohio specifically assisting the City of Marietta and outline the lessons learned and benefits of this new and unique approach to mitigation. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Nancy A. Olson Ms. Olson is currently a Natural Hazards Program Specialist with the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Branch of Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Her day-to-day duties include serving as the Consultation Coordination Officer for the National Flood Insurance Program for the State of Ohio, Regional point-of -contact for substantial damage issues, the FEMA State Liaison for Emergency Response

69

for Ohio and the Community Assistance Coordinator (CAP) for Region V. Ms. Olson holds a Bachelor of Business Degree from Western Illinois University. Prior to joining FEMA she was a Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser in Illinois and President of Olson Appraisal Services, a real estate appraisal firm specializing in single-family and subdivision appraisals. Ms. Olson also has extensive experience in the insurance industry having worked as a Product Analyst for CNA Insurance and as a claims adjuster for Safeco Insurance. Since joining FEMA in 1997, Ms. Olson has worked in both the Community Mitigation Program Branch and the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Branch. She has provided numerous training workshops for both State and local officials on the Residential Substantial Damage Estimation process.

Future of the IJssel Delta: an example of Contemporary River Basin Management and Adaptation to Climate Change

Teunis Louters, Project Manager, DHV BV. Joost ter Hoeven Marius Sokolewicz Dick Kevelam Abstract

The river IJssel is a downstream river branch of the Rhine River Basin in Europe (see figure 1). More and heavier rainfall will increase the normative river discharge of the river Rhine from 15.000 to 18.000 m3/s in 2050. Already the IJssel Delta is very vulnerable to flooding both from river and lake, and increasing river discharges and sea level rise will push water levels beyond present containment capacity in this low-lying but heavily populated area. Due to scarcity of space, particular near the historic waterfront city of Kampen, an integrated spatial concept was developed considering river basin requirements, urban development and spatial zoning. The main goal was to achieve a safe and sustainable environment adaptive to the effects of Climate Change. The project 'Future of the IJssel Delta' in the Netherlands is an excellent example of contemporary river basin management and was selected by Dutch Government as a best practice. Figure 1: Location of the IJssel Delta area in the Netherlands and impression of deltaic environment

The Netherlands

Lake IJsselmeer Amsterdam IJsseldelta IJssel river

Rhine

To direct developments rather than suffer their consequences, responsible regional and local government took a key decision and choose not to wait but to join forces. Large scale initiatives, such as urban

70

development and main infrastructure axes, in combination with flood management and related river themes needed to be coordinated in an integrated regional approach. A new river bypass around the city of Kampen was investigated as a long-term solution for the flooding problem as an alternative to again raise existing and historic flood protection. River Engineers, Urban Planners and Architects were commissioned to draft scenarios on spatial zoning, landscape and natural environment looking for possibilities to increase overall spatial quality for human activities and nature. To develop plans at such scale and with such complexity, a sound administrative basis was set up to support the planning. The preferred scenario for the bypass was created in a stepwise interactive planning process involving local, regional and national authorities, agencies and other stakeholders (environmentalists, farmers and inhabitants of this area). These authorities worked together from the very start of the project. Local support is a key factor for plan development and implementation. DHV managed the process and executed the technical, urban and financial studies in coordination with the responsible agencies. The key to success of this project has proven to be proper coordination and (independent) scientific and technical knowledge. It proved to be successful and resulted in dedicated spatial plans assuring that the IJssel Delta area will keep its unique ecological and historic features in future, while at the same time taking its fair share of growing economy. This paper describes the adopted planning process, the key issues and its result. Key words: Contemporary river basin management, spatial planning, flood management

71

Hazard Mitigation Plans for Colleges & Universities: Differing Approaches to Applying Flood Mitigation Techniques in Urban and Rural Settings.

Scott R. Choquette, CFM, Assocates, Dewberry Tucker Husband, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, The Medical and Scientific Community Organization, Inc. Jane Sibley Frantz, Sr. Hazard Mitigation Planner, Dewberry Abstract

The objectives of this session are to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Understand the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as they apply to academic institutions. Learn the major components and process of creating a University Hazard Mitigation Plan Learn techniques whereby university/college departments collaborated successfully during creation of a mitigation plan Compare and Contrast flood mitigation techniques used in urban vs. rural settings at an institutional level.

Hazard Mitigation Plans serve as a guide for university and community decision-makers as they commit resources in an effort to reduce the future impact of hazards. Six downtown Boston colleges joined forces under the Colleges of the Fenway consortium to develop a Multi-Institutional Hazard Mitigation Plan pursuant to FEMA's Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requirements. The six colleges are located in close proximity to one another in the Longwood Medical and Academic (LMA) of Boston's Back Bay. The periphery of the LMA is skirted by the "Emerald Necklace" a linear park system along the Muddy River deigned by Frederick Law Olmsted. The institutions of the Colleges of the Fenway, (Emmanuel College, Massachusetts College of Art, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Simmons College, the Wentworth Institute of Technology and Wheelock College) recognized that their flooding and other hazard problems could be better addressed in collaboration as opposed to a campus-by-campus approach. Learn the innovative ways these schools collaborated to develop a comprehensive plan for the area. Compare approaches and techniques used by these urban institutions, as well as Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA, with those used by more rural Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's (Virginia Tech). Virginia Tech deals primarily with riverine flooding, while the Colleges of the Fenway and Old Dominion are faced with complex urban drainage issues, combined with riverine flooding. Representatives from the Colleges and their consultant will share their experiences in developing the plans. The session will cover all components of the process, from organizing the "mitigation advisory committees", performing the hazard identification and risk analysis, obtaining community input, drafting a full report, to the FEMA approval and final adoption of the plan. Emphasis will be placed on the differences in approach to risk and vulnerability assessment from community planning to a more building centric institutional environment. The consortium developed overall goals and objectives beneficial to the area, while allowing each college to specify unique goals and objectives for the individual institutions. In contrast, Virginia Tech and Old Dominion pursued campus-wide planning efforts. Virginia Tech's built on the local hazard mitigation plan developed by the Town of Blacksburg, VA. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Scott Choquette Scott Choquette, CFM is a Sr. Project Manager for the Hazard Engineering Resources Department in Dewberry's Boston office and a national mitigation planning lead for the firm. His work involves a

72

mixture of Flood Map Modernization support, Mitigation Planning and Emergency Management. Mr. Choquette has been directly involved in Floodplain Management for 15 years. Prior to joining Dewberry he was State Floodplain Management Coordinator and Deputy Hazard Mitigation Officer for the State of Connecticut for 9 years. Scott is a past officer and current Region I Director for ASFPM and was Chairman of the New England Floodplain and Stormwater Managers Association. He also currently serves on the Institute for Business and Home Safety's Safe Growth Committee.

73

C-4 Going Coastal: Mitigation ­ Creating Safer Communities Sponsored By: FEMA

Moderator: Deborah Ingram, FEMA Risk Reduction Branch

HMGP Reconstruction Grant Pilot for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma Overview Session:

Keith Turi, Program Specialist, DHS, FEMA, Mitigation Division Cece Rosenberg Abstract

The significant rebuilding challenge in the Gulf Coast presents an unprecedented opportunity for FEMA to work with States and communities to incorporate mitigation directly into the reconstruction process, and thereby create more disaster resistant communities for the future. Attendees of this session will be provided a general overview of this Pilot which provides another option for the local and State governments that are responsible for making decisions and identifying appropriate mitigation measures for their communities. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Keith Turi Keith Turi is a Program Specialist with FEMA's Mitigation Division, Risk Reduction Branch, Grants Implementation Section.

NFIP Increased Cost of Construction Post Katrina

Russ Tinsley, Insurance Examiner, FEMA Mitigation Division

Flood losses associated with Hurricane Katrina have placed the greatest demands on the NFIP Increased Cost of Compliance coverage the program has experienced. This resulted in delivering new training to adjusters, formulating new policy decisions, incorporating ICC into the use of Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) data and other unique demands following Katrina. This session will provide an overview of the role ICC has played in the reconstruction activities following Hurricane Katrina. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Russell Tinsley Russell Tinsley has been with FEMA's Mitigation Division since January 2005 as the Insurance Program Specialist. Prior to coming to FEMA, Mr. Tinsley spent over 30 years as an all-lines claims adjuster working in staff and independent adjusting capacities. His first ten years were spent with what is now GAB Robins. He then joined USAA as their regional adjuster for the Southeast region. After five and a half years Mr. Tinsley left USAA to join Bankers Insurance Group becoming a Property Technical Administrator. Prior to joining FEMA he was the Property Technical Advisor for Insurance Management Solutions Group.

74

While Mr. Tinsley has handled all types of insurance claims, his focus and subject matter expertise has become property claims and flood insurance claims in particular. He has represented carriers from both the wind and flood sides of a claim. Mr. Tinsley graduated of Stetson University in Deland, Florida with a B.B.A. He earned an Associate in Claims (AIC) designation from the Insurance Institute of America in 1979.

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Guidelines Update

Jonathan Westcott, P.E., Program Specialist, FEMA Headquarters Michael Anderson, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Krista Collier, Technical Specialist, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Gary Zimmerer, Project Engineer, FEMA Region VI Abstract

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for preparing Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that delineate flood hazard zones and Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) in coastal areas of the United States. These areas are among the most densely populated and economically important areas in the nation. Guidelines for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts were initially established in 1989; however, no comprehensive assessment had been conducted to evaluate their effectiveness in hazard mapping since the last published effort in 1995. The need for a comprehensive review of the existing guidelines was identified and was recommended in the FEMA Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping Phase 1 Summary Report dated February 2005. Procedures needed to be modified or developed to incorporate experience from studies and appeals, information on actual damages, and post-storm verification data. In addition, the existing procedures needed review because recent research and new data has produced an improved understanding of ocean and coastal processes. The new Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Guidelines Update implements many of the shortterm enhancements and needed revisions to the existing Appendix D guidance for the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coasts documented in the Phase 1 Summary Report and implemented via FEMA Procedure Memorandum No. 37--Protocol for Atlantic and Gulf Coast Coastal Flood Insurance Studies in FY05, dated August 1, 2005 (PM37). The Atlantic and Gulf Guidelines Update supersedes PM37. This project was authorized cooperatively by FEMA Headquarters and FEMA Region VI, as the follow-up to previous phase 1 and 2 projects supported by FEMA Regions IX and X. The Project Coordinator was Gary Zimmerer, Project Engineer for FEMA Region VI. Michael Baker Jr., Inc, the National Service Provider to FEMA for Map Modernization, assumed the lead consultant and manager role for the project. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Michael Anderson Michael Anderson is the Region VI Regional Management Center Program Manager for Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in the Denton, TX office. Mr. Anderson has nine years of experience as a water resources engineer specializing in federal projects. Mr. Anderson earned a BS and MS in Civil Engineering from Texas Tech

75

University. Mr. Anderson is a registered professional engineer in Texas and is also a Certified Floodplain Manager. Mr. Anderson is currently responsible for the success of the Map Modernization Program in FEMA Region VI.

76

C-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Levees (II)

Moderator: Bruce Bender, Bender Consulting Services, Inc.

Flood Insurance Meets Map Changes and Levees ­ Outreach Best Practices

Mary Jo Vrem, Project Manager, Floodsmart, NFIP Marketing Campaign Kamer Davis, Senior Vice President, Ogilvy Public Relations Abstract

Floodplain managers face public scrutiny every day. Are you prepared to handle questions from concerned citizens about how new flood hazard maps affect them and why their flood risk has changed? What about questions from the media regarding the integrity of the levees in your community? Can you field questions from the public regarding the current map adjustments? And are you able to explain the benefits of new maps and cost-saving insurance options in a way that will help diffuse the concerns of property owners in your area? This session will share materials and outreach-related best practices/ lessons learned to enhance your ability to address "hot topics" with regard to the current map modernization project, levees, and insurance issues. You will walk away with a CD of concrete tools and examples to help as you continue to develop messages and communicate flood related issues specific to your community. Draw on case studies from various regions around the country to illustrate important points, get fact sheets and easy-to-use templates to support your communications platform, and walk away with other resources to bolster your efforts. As a floodplain manager, understanding map changes, being aware of the flood risks, and knowing the importance of flood insurance is only half the battle. You must not only be familiar with these issues, but must be able to clearly explain these topics to, and work together with, members of your community. By ensuring a greater level of understanding among key audiences in your community, you'll help to promote a greater level of public safety. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mary Jo Vrem Mary Jo Vrem is the project manager for the NFIP FloodSmart Program. She joined FEMA in 1994 and worked in the Office of Congressional Affairs prior to moving to the National Flood Insurance Program. Before coming to FEMA she spent 11 years in the United States Senate, serving as professional staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee.

77

Lessons Learned in Deaccreditation

Eric Simmons, CFM, Engineer, FEMA Region IX Abstract

With flood hazard mapping efforts focusing on the identification of risk behind levees, the work of those involved in these mapping projects has become more complicated. The Lower Feather River Floodplain Mapping Study (LFRFMS), a joint project between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), California Department of Water Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created mapping to deaccredit many levee systems in two northern California counties. The mapping project has been an early pilot under flood map modernization in FEMA Region IX and serves as an example for work that will become more common. The LFRFMS mapping project illustrates the challenges others may experience as updated flood maps are created in areas with levees currently accredited by FEMA. The lessons learned on the LFRFMS can be grouped into two broad categories: · · Consistent messaging, stakeholder expectations, and outreach Technical methodologies and mapping standards

Flood hazards are mapped to create broad-based awareness of flood risk and provide the data necessary for risk mitigation programs and rating flood insurance on an actuarial basis. Outreach during the mapping process must communicate these purposes to communities and other key stakeholders. However, the current process may be inadequate where a new flood map proposes extensive changes in special flood hazard areas, particularly when a levee is deaccredited. Emphasizing risk mitigation and the resulting improvement of public safety due to updated flood hazard mapping should be an important component of an outreach strategy. Other areas where consistent messages should be communicated include the explanation of flood risk, benefits of flood insurance behind levees, and the need for layers of protection from flood loss. Teaming with other agencies in this effort is especially beneficial. While the political challenges and resistance to mapping flood hazards around levees are large, a consistent mapping approach supports the purposes of flood mapping and focuses attention on technical issues. The early identification of levees, especially those accredited with providing protection from the base flood on a current FEMA flood map, is critical to the flood mapping process. Common issues with levees also impact flood hazard mapping around levees. The location and integrity of levees is often unknown, but must be determined before accurate flood hazard mapping is developed. In addition, guidance on acceptable technical methodologies for performing "without levee" analyses is limited. Therefore, the computer models and technical approaches used for the final mapping should be chosen with care. In summary, this paper will first describe the LFRFMS and related study methodology, outreach, and stakeholder feedback. Second, a discussion of the lessons learned in preparing flood maps around levees will be held with a focus on outreach and technical mapping standards.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Eric Simmons Eric Simmons, CFM, is an engineer with the Mitigation Division of DHS/FEMA Region IX in Oakland, CA. His responsibilities include leading and coordinating flood map modernization projects and support for activities involving digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) production, new hazard analyses, scoping and needs assessment, outreach, geospatial data coordination, and training on a variety of floodplain management and mapping topics. Previous to joining FEMA, Mr. Simmons was a project manager and team director for Dewberry & Davis responsible for production of Flood Insurance Study

78

reports, DFIRMs, Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs), Conditional LOMRs, and special engineering projects. Mr. Simmons graduated from the University of Maryland with a B.S.C.E in 1993 and an M.S.C.E. in 1996.

Levee Recertification in Southern California Counties

Ray Lenaburg, Senior Engineer, FEMA Region IX Jerry Sparks, North & West Regions Branch Director, Dewberry John Hoffman, North & West Regions Branch Deputy Director, Dewberry Abstract

FEMA is deeply concerned about the risk to human life and public safety, as well as the potentially devastating financial consequences for uninsured or underinsured properties, which may result from levee failure. Therefore, in August 2005, FEMA issued Procedure Memorandum 34, Interim Guidance for Studies Involving Levees. Procedure Memorandum 34 implemented a nationwide policy under Map Modernization to verify the certification status of all levees currently depicted on the effective FIRMs as providing protection from the base (1% annual chance) flood. The regulatory requirements for accrediting levees as providing base flood protection on FIRMs is found in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 65.10 (44 CFR 65.10). These criteria include design criteria (e.g., freeboard, closures, embankment protection, embankment and foundation stability, settlement, interior drainage) as well as operation and maintenance plans. In addition, in September 2006, FEMA issued Procedure Memorandum 43, Guidelines for Identifying Provisionally Accredited Levees. This presentation will overview the requirements of 44 CFR 65.10, the rationale and specifics of Procedure Memorandum 34/43, and FEMA Region IX's approach in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the appropriate community agencies in implementing these Procedure Memoranda for on-going Countywide Digital DFIRM update projects in southern California. The presentation will also present cost-effective levee failure techniques for uncertified levees being applied for DFIRMs in southern California. Authors: 1. Raymond T. Lenaburg Senior Civil Engineer FEMA Region IX Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 [email protected] 510.627.7181 2. Jerry W. Sparks, P.E., CFM Senior Associate Dewberry 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031 [email protected] 703.849.0476 John M. Hoffman, CFM Dewberry

3.

79

8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031 [email protected] 703.849.0370 PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Ray Lenaburg Ray Lenaburg is Senior Engineer of the Community Mitigation Program Branch with the Mitigation Division of the Department of Homeland Security-FEMA Region IX in Oakland, CA. He has supervised more than 600 Flood Insurance Studies in Arizona, California, Nevada, Hawaii, and the other Pacific Trust Territories. Prior to joining the NFIP in 1976, he worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

80

C-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Containing Costs Moderator: Grant Smith, PE, Dewberry So Many Bridges, So Little Budget

A case study of how a Study Contractor acquired additional (out of scope) data for hydraulic modeling in Region I without compromising the project budget and schedule. Peter A. Richardson, P.E., CFM, Vice President, Green International Affiliates, Inc. Michael Goetz, HIRA Branch Chief, FEMA Region I Ronald D. Miner, P.E., Project Manager, CDM Abstract

In order to meet the metrics under the Map Modernization Program, FEMA Region I has to negotiate the maximum amount of hydrologic/hydraulic analyses it can with its IDIQ Study Contractors and ensure that study costs stay within certain (cost per stream mile) limits. Because survey of hydraulic structures represents a significant part of the cost for flood studies, there is usually not enough funding available to survey every single hydraulic structure along the flooding sources within a particular study area. Therefore, Study Contractors must maximize the use of record plan information (i.e. plans of bridges/culverts from State DOT's and/or municipalities), as well as valid hydraulic model data (i.e. effective HEC-2/HEC-RAS data) in order to develop acceptable Task Order budgets. During the negotiation of a Task Order, a Study Contractor has to make assumptions as to how many structures will require actual survey and, by the same token, how many will actually have reliable record information or back-up data that can be used for hydraulic model coding. So, what happens when the number of bridge plans available is less than specified in the Task Order assumption and some of the back-up hydraulic data is missing? Well, for some Study Contractors, this is the perfect opportunity to file a Special Problem Report and request more money and time to complete the work. However, one IDIQ Study Contractor in Region I, who realizes the importance of holding to established budgets and schedules in performance-based contracting, took a different approach. CDM and their subconsultant, Green International Affiliates, Inc., found ways to acquire additional (out of scope) survey data that was required to build accurate hydraulic models for several major flooding sources in Massachusetts and Vermont without compromising the original budget or schedule.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Peter A. Richardson Mr. Richardson is Vice President and C.O.O. of Green International Affiliates, Inc., a 35-person consulting engineering firm based in Medford, MA. Mr. Richardson has 21 years of experience and heads up Green's Water Resources Division. He has been responsible for updating/revising more than 40 FEMA Flood Insurance Studies in Region 1 and is currently overseeing Green's work on several FEMA Map Modernization projects as a subconsultant to CDM under their IDIQ contract. He has a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Lowell and is a licensed professional engineer in five New England states. He is a Certified Floodplain Manager with the Association of State Floodplain Managers and is also a LEED Accredited Design Professional with the U.S. Green Building Council. Mr. Richardson is a past Chair of both the Boston Society of Civil Engineers Hydraulics & Water Resources Technical Group and the New England Floodplain and Stormwater Managers Association (NEFSMA).

81

Getting the Most Bang for the Buck with Map Mod

John E. Hays, Floodplain Coordinator, Santa Cruz County Flood Control District John Wise, Principle, Water Resources, Santec Consulting, Inc. Abstract

In the early part of 2006, the Santa Cruz County Flood Control District embarked upon a project to generate a new Flood Insurance Study. The intent of this study is to completely replace the existing Flood Insurance Study with all new mapping covering the majority of Santa Cruz County, Arizona's 1,238 square miles. The project includes the complete remapping of approximately 99 percent of all the detailed studies, approximately 93.5 stream miles, throughout the County, including those in the incorporated communities of Nogales and Patagonia, Arizona. The project will also include 82.1 miles of new limited detailed studies within the county to either provide additional data in areas of rapid development or to tie together separated detailed studies within the same watershed. Finally, the project includes the expansion of approximate floodplain studies centered primarily on the privately owned portions of the County, as well as publicly owned lands that can potentially be developed. Santa Cruz County is receiving a grant of one million dollars of Map Modernization funds from FEMA to help fund the project. In addition, Santa Cruz County is providing an additional $493,000.00 in funding to acquire 2 foot contour interval topography for the entire county via LIDAR mapping technologies. Detailed and limited detail studies are being carried out by the County's contractor, Stantec Consulting, Incorporated, of Tucson, Arizona, using the best available technologies and methodologies for floodplain mapping to result in a set of county-wide digital flood insurance rate maps in a GIS environment. The approximate studies are being carried out by Santa Cruz County Flood Control District Staff in the GIS environment using photographic interpretation of high detailed, ortho-rectified aerial photography. This portion of the project began in early 2003 out of a need to delineate all regulatory floodplains for the purpose of proper enforcement of the Santa Cruz County Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Ordinance #2001-03. Santa Cruz County entered the project by becoming a Cooperating Technical Partner with FEMA. In addition, County Staff, along with Staff from FEMA Region IX and the County's Consultant, Stantec Consulting, simultaneously participated in the CTP Training offered at the Emergency Management Institute in Emmetsburg, Maryland. Santa Cruz County is acting as the Project Manager for the project, and has an aggressive schedule for completing the project in a fifteen month time frame. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Hays John Hays is currently the Floodplain Coordinator for Santa Cruz County, Arizona. His duties include updating the Santa Cruz County Floodplain Ordinance, enforcement of the Santa Cruz County Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Ordinance, investigation of drainage complaints and flood events, perform site visits at the request of the public for site specific information, document violations and damages, prepare written reports of findings, managing recovery/mitigation projects, creation and implementation of a Floodplain Use Permit System, reviewing hydrologic and hydraulic studies for private and public projects, reviewing plats and improvement plan for proposed subdivisions and commercial developments, identify floodplain status at the request of individuals in both the public and private sectors, implementation of the Santa Cruz County Flood Volunteer Rain Gauge System, operation of Santa Cruz County Precipitation and Stream Gauge System, management of disaster recovery and mitigation projects, and preparing and presenting monthly reports to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors.

82

Raised in Texas and Arizona, John holds degrees in Geology and Planetary Geology from Northern Arizona University and Brown University, respectively, and is married with two children. Besides teaching geology at the Nogales Campus of Cochise College, John is also the Cub Master for Cub Scout Pack 508, and serves on the IBWC Southeastern Arizona Citizens Forum (current member, former Co-Chair), Arizona State Park Natural Area Advisory Council (current member, former Vice Chair and Chair), Arizona Floodplain Management Association Board of Directors (former Southern Region Representative, past Associate Member at Large), and the Coronado RC&D Council (current President).

That Pain in Your Side Might Be Your Appendix N A Home Remedy using AcrGIS's ModelBuilder

Amelia Bergbreiter, CFM, Engineering Staff, PBS&J K.C. Robinson, CFM, Engineering Staff, PBS&J Christine Worley, P.E., Senior Engineer, PBS&J ABSTRACT

The purpose of Appendix N of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners is to provide a consistent structure for the collection, analysis, storage and retrieval of the data used in the production of a Flood Insurance study (FIS) or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) revision. Appendix N, specifically the Data Capture Standards (DCS) section, describe in detail the required files, fields, and folders to submit the engineering data used to produce a FIS and FIRM. Translating data to a DCS-compliant format has proven to be a time-consuming task. The requirements for specific field names and types, as well as the necessity to complete fields not automatically created with most tools opens the door for user errors unless an automated process and template is developed. ModelBuilder is a tool that is included in all versions of ArcGIS which allows the user to link together ArcToolbox tools into a savable and repeatable process model. It includes tools to create and edit both shapefiles and database tables. The tool does not require any programming experience; therefore is more accessible to all individuals and easy to tailor for individual circumstances. Use of ModelBuilder for DCS purposes is exemplified through the translation of an ArcHydro dataset, a free GIS-based hydrology tool and a HEC-RAS GIS export file. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Amelia Bergbreiter Ms. Bergbreiter is an engineer in the Floodplain Hazard Management Division at PBS&J. She has over 3 years of experience in civil and environmental engineering. In her role with PBS&J, she has been involved in the National Flood Insurance Program conducting technical reviews and creating approximate, limited detail, and detailed floodplain studies. She holds a B.S.E. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Princeton University.

83

C-7 Floodplain Mapping: Floodplain Mapping for the Future Sponsored By: Watershed Concepts Moderator: David M. Key, PE, CFM, Watershed Concepts The 1,600 Mile Challenge: Terrain Processing and Floodplain Mapping of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers in FEMA Region VII

Andy Bonner, Engineering Department Head, Watershed Concept Rick Nusz, Regional Engineer, FEMA Region VII Brandon Banks, GIS Analyst, Watershed Concepts Abstract

The Missouri River represents the longest overall flooding source within FEMA Region VII (Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska). The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently completed an engineering flood study of the Missouri River, from its mouth with the Mississippi, upstream to River Mile 811 in Nebraska as part of its Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study (UMRSFFS). As part of this effort, the USACE collected new topographic data covering this 811-mile reach of the Missouri River floodplain, from bluff to bluff. Recognizing the need to utilize this data for future floodplain mapping efforts in its countywide DFIRM studies, FEMA Region VII set out to develop a seamless terrain model of the Missouri River floodplain. The benefit of this effort continues to expand as the Region prepares to address potential changes to the Missouri River floodplain delineations that may be needed as a result of levees that may no longer be certifiable. Processing the roughly 2,300 square miles of 350,000,000 ground points of Missouri River floodplain topographic data into one seamless terrain model involved the collection, combination, and manipulation of nearly 50 different individual data files that made up the overall topographic area. A customized WISE terrain extension was used to produce the seamless Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) model, which was derived from a variety of digital terrain model source data. The final terrain product will be available for mapping partners to access and use through WISE on the MIP, and will also be available in Data Capture Standard format on the MIP. This TIN will be used as the foundation for floodplain mapping and engineering efforts within counties bordering the Missouri River as FEMA continues its floodplain mapping program in Region VII.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Andy Bonner Andy Bonner is the Engineering Department Head for the Watershed Concepts ­ Kansas City office and has over 5 years experience in the water resources field. He has extensive experience in performing largeand small-scale watershed studies as an engineer. Mr. Bonner also leads and directs the efforts of a team of engineers and GIS professionals in performing watershed studies, mapping, and reviews. In his current role, Mr. Bonner is functioning as the Engineering Manager in the FEMA Region VII Regional Management Center and works regularly with the FEMA Regional Engineers to provide guidance to regional mapping partners on critical technical issues related to the Map Modernization program and on the implementation of national technical directives within the Region.

84

85

Future Conditions Floodplain Mapping ­ The Good, Bad and the Ugly

Timothy J. Trautman, P.E., CFM, Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services Joseph B. Chapman, Vice President, Watershed Concepts Abstract

In 2000, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina chose to aggressively pursue implementing a Community Floodplain based on future conditions mapping as part of an ongoing update of their Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The Community (future conditions) flood elevations provided another tool for CharlotteMecklenburg Storm Water Services to further protect the citizens of Mecklenburg County from the risks associated with flooding. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services desired to stop the cycle of permitting new construction, to current (FEMA) flood levels, that would some day flood when the entire watershed is build out. Using the future conditions elevations, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services began requiring all new development to be built one foot above the future conditions flood elevations. Since the time these new higher standards have been implemented, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services has encountered a variety of issues that make the enforcement of the local floodplain management ordinance based on these higher standards challenging. This presentation will discuss these issues and innovative ways they have addressed these challenges. Topics discussed will include regulating substantial improvements based on Community flood levels, assessing the accuracy of the future conditions floodplain, financial implications to impacted property owners, and public awareness/disclosure of the Community Floodplain. Communities that have or are looking to implement and regulate based on future conditions flood elevations will hear firsthand these issues and how Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services has tried to address them in a fair and equitable manner. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Timothy J. Trautman Mr. Trautman is currently the Flood Mitigation Program Manager for Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services in Charlotte, North Carolina. His program is responsible for flood mitigation planning and regulatory review of floodplain development within Mecklenburg County. This includes planning activities to reduce current flood losses, pursuing funding; implementing acquisitions of floodprone buildings, managing a local automated advanced flood notification system, enforcing floodplain ordinances, issuing floodplain development permits, issuing notices of violation, reviewing building elevation certificates, maintaining accurate floodplain maps, etc. Previously, Mr. Trautman was a project manager overseeing capital improvement projects in the FEMA regulated floodplain, including stream restoration, and flood hazard mitigation. He has managed nearly $25M in floodplain acquisitions over the past 7 years. Before working for Mecklenburg County, Mr. Trautman worked as a staff engineer in PBS&J's Charlotte, NC office. Mr. Trautman has a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and a Master of Engineering degree from the State University of New York at Buffalo. His Masters work focused in Water Resources and Construction Management.

86

City of Raleigh, North Carolina Future Conditions Floodplain Mapping Project

Rick Prosser, P.E., CFM, Principal Associate, Watershed Concetp Danny Bowden, Stormwater Program Manager, City of Raleigh Public Works Dept. Laura Arnold, EI, CFM, Engineer I, Watershed Concepts Abstract

Project Background The City of Raleigh, North Carolina is undertaking a project to determine 1% annual chance future conditions floodplain boundaries under build out conditions for FEMA studied streams within the city limit. The City intends to regulate floodplain development based on the 1% future elevations. The overall scope of this project is to develop approximately 110 miles of new hydrologic and hydraulic models. The models will establish 10, 2, 1, and 0.2% annual chance of exceedance discharges and elevations under existing conditions and the 1% annual chance of exceedance discharges and elevations for the build out (future) conditions. Data Types Many types of data had to be acquired for the project including topographic information, survey data of hydraulic structures and floodplains, soils data and a description of current and future land use. Mass points and breaklines served as the source for topographic data. Survey data of hydraulic structures and floodplains was obtained with detail GPS surveys and field measurements of the channel at every modeled cross section. Current and future land use data was developed from the information contained in the Wake County, North Carolina tax parcel GIS shapefiles. The tax parcels had to be grouped into different landuse categories. The tax parcel file contained 155,000 records, and each record had to be grouped into one of 10 different landuse categories. A methodology was established for processing the parcel information to determine existing and future land use conditions. Adjustments to the methodology were made throughout the project until the models were properly calibrated to known historical events and high water marks. Land Use Methodology In order to determine existing land use, several pieces of information from the tax parcel data was used. The first type of data considered was land class, which was described in the parcel metadata. The land class field provided a rough estimate of the current land use. Some of these values were straightforward, while others were vague. In some cases, additional fields in the shapefile yielded additional information that could be used to classify each parcel. In other cases, a representative number of parcels of a certain land class were examined using orthophotographs and a land use was assigned to the whole group based on the results. In order to establish the future land use, build out conditions under current zoning status was assumed. Zoning codes in Wake County are different for each community and there are 8 separate communities. For each parcel in the shapefile both community and zoning code are listed. The code definitions were found in the Unified Development Ordinance for each community. The future landuses were reviewed by City staff knowledgeable about future development plans, and minor manual adjustments were made. Outreach Plan Once the models are calibrated, reviewed and approved by the City, there will be several outreach meetings held. A total of four meetings will be held in each quadrant of the City. The purpose of the outreach meeting is to educate and get community and developer buy-in to the project, by getting their input and comments.

87

Final Results The Final results will be shown on revised FEMA FIRM maps for Wake County, NC. The maps will be created through a partnership between the City of Raleigh and the North Carolina Statewide Floodplain Mapping Program. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Rick Prosser Mr. Prosser is a Principal Associate for Watershed Concepts, a Division of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. He has over 11 years experience in water resources including experience in floodplain mapping through the National Flood Insurance Program. He has served as Project Manager for several large countywide Flood Insurance Studies, and is serving as Watershed Concepts Project Manager for the City of Raleigh Future Conditions Floodplain Mapping Project.

88

C-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Terrain ­ Laying the Groundwork for Mapping Moderator: Ken Hamer, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Development of Criteria for Determining Optimum Reach Lengths to Layout Cross Sections in 1 D Hydraulic Models

M. Saleen Ashraf, Ph.D., P.E., Technical Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Abstract

It has been observed that the computed water surface elevations differ at the same cross section when different reach lengths are used in one-dimensional hydraulic models, such as HEC-2 or HEC-RAS. These discrepancies in the computed water surface elevations cause doubts about the accuracies of the modeling results used for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Studies, as well as for water resources planning and flood mitigation studies. The problem of optimum reach length also arises for the prismatic channels which have uniform cross section configurations throughout the reach of the channel. Only a minimum guidance is available for the selection of appropriate reach lengths to layout cross section in straight engineered channels and natural irregular channels in the one-dimensional hydraulic models. In this study, the problem of optimum reach length in the one-dimensional hydraulic models will be investigated from the theory of hydraulic engineering and fluid mechanics. Criteria and guidance will be developed for the selection of optimum reach lengths for the natural irregular channels and engineered uniform channel for the one-dimensional hydraulic models. The guidance will be useful for allocating optimum financial and human resources for planning and conducting hydraulic modeling and water resources studies, and for increasing the accuracies of the modeling results.

1

Technical Manager, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Saleem Ashraf Saleem Ashraf received his Ph.D. degree in Water Resources/Environmental Engineering in 1992 from Rutgers University, New Jersey. Dr. Ashraf worked as a research scientist at the University of Idaho from 1992 to 1999, where he conducted research in various aspects of hydrologic and water quality modeling. Since 1999, he has provided consulting services to various private and government clients in the area of water resources management, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, water quality modeling, and risk assessment. Currently Dr. Ashraf is a member of the Mapping on Demand (MOD) team, and is working as a Technical Manager at Michael Baker, Jr. Inc., Alexandria, Virginia. He is managing MT-2 (LOMR/CLOMR) processing for the State of Texas.

89

Using Airborne Lidar Bathymetry to Map Shallow River Environments

John Gerhard, CP, Group Manager, Woolpert, Inc., Englewood, CO David Millar, Fugro Pelagos, Inc., San Diego, CA Robert Hilldale, P.E., Bureau of Reclamation, Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group, Technical Services Center, Denver, CO Abstract

Despite the fact that Airborne Lidar Bathymetry (ALB) systems have been in existence for over 20 years, they have rarely been used in riverine environments. Consequently, obtaining bathymetry in shallow river conditions has continued to be a major technical challenge for surveyors and engineers. Vessel-based acoustic and traditional land survey methods do not yield full coverage and are labor intensive. ALB technology, while very efficient and capable of providing full bottom coverage, has not historically provided the ability to work in shallow river environments. After consulting with Optech, Woolpert, and Fugro Pelagos regarding newly developed capabilities to recover bathymetry data in very shallow water depths (< 25cm), the Bureau of Reclamation decided to proceed with an ALB survey. In August 2004, the SHOALS-1000T was used to collect bathymetric soundings at a 2m x 2m sounding density on two reaches of the Yakima River in Washington. The two reaches had average depths of < 1m and 1.5-2m, with maximum depths of 2m and 3m, respectively. ALB technology may now provide an alternative method for collecting bathymetry data in rivers. ALB technology may also provide the ability to collect this data in locations that were previously off limits due to access issues or unsafe boating conditions. Further, long reaches can be covered very quickly with this airborne technology. Accurate ALB data can be combined with the SHOALS-1000T's integrated terrestrial data to provide a complete representation of the river channel and floodplain. This type of final product is something river engineers have been seeking for many years. The resulting terrain model can be applied to numerical models to study hydraulic conditions as they relate to fish habitat, sediment transport, flooding, and levee configuration. With the improved data density provided by ALB, numerical models may be more reliable due to fewer assumptions regarding channel bed configuration. Additionally, multidimensional hydraulic models become much more practical to use due to the increased data density and comprehensive coverage of ALB data.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Gerhard John Gerhard is a group manager of photogrammetry with Woolpert, Inc. in Denver, CO. He has been instrumental in the development of digital imagery processes and has led the firm's "beta test team" in developing software for digital image applications. He is a nationally Certified Photogrammetrist (CP) and a member of the American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS).

90

Shallow Urban Flood Modeling

David Froehlich, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, Consulting Engineering, Woolpert, Inc. Abstract

Simulating shallow urban flooding using one-dimensional hydrodynamic models requires much skill and effort to deal with the problem of difficult to define flow paths, since cross sections need to be positioned perpendicular to the flow direction such that the water elevation is nearly constant along them. Additionally, the presence of floodplain obstructions, such as buildings, which may be numerous and randomly positioned, often defies realistic representation in the models. When satisfying one-dimensional modeling conditions accurately becomes nearly impossible, recourse can be made to two-dimensional depth-averaged flow models that are not limited by these constraints. Such models implicitly determine flow direction and can account for lateral variations of water-surface elevation, the presence of obstructions such as buildings, and the influence of streets, gutters, and expansive paved or grassed surfaces. A computer model is introduced that solves the two-dimensional depth-averaged flow equations on an unstructured computational mesh, describing accurately flow over small to moderately steep slopes where the pressure distribution is approximately hydrostatic. The numerical method is based on an explicit cell-centered finite volume scheme that solves a conservation form of the time-dependent shallow-water equations. Consequently, the numerical solutions are stable in the presence of steep slopes and transcritical flows (that is, where hydraulic jumps occur). Wetting and drying of channels and floodplains is accounted for automatically in the solution process, allowing dry starts and moveable boundaries. Increasingly, efficient acquisition of detailed topographic data using airborne scanning laser altimetry (LiDAR) has been furthering the use of such models. Application of the two-dimensional depth-averaged flow model to simulate shallow flooding along a reach of Little Sugar Creek in Charlotte, North Carolina is presented. This section of the stream is characterized by dense commercial and residential development, and intermittent sections of open and closed channels. Overflow from open sections onto paved parking lots and grassed surfaces becomes disconnected from the main channel as it travels notably long distances down roadways and around buildings before rejoining the main flow. Simulation of complete flood hydrographs illustrates the timedependent nature of floodplain inundation. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Froehlich David develops and applies numerical models that simulate surface-water and groundwater flow, sediment transport in rivers, stormwater runoff, and hydrologic performance of wetlands. Increasingly, these simulation tools are being used as components of decision support systems for assessing flood hazards and as computational elements of optimization models for designing stormwater management controls. David also carries out laboratory and field experiments used to test numerical model predictive abilities and to improve understanding of fundamental aspects of surface-water flow and sediment transport. From time to time, he has opportunities to apply his limited knowledge, skills, and abilities to evaluate real topics that make him feel good about being a civil engineer.

91

SESSION D WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1:30 P.M. ­ 3:30 P.M.

D-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Pot Luck Moderator: Juanita Thompson, FEMA Delaware River Court Case

Cleighton Smith, P.E., CFM, Senior Project Manager, Dewberry Susan Kleiner, Drinker Biddle & Reath Abstract

This court case involved renters of several summer cottages in the floodway of the Delaware River who experiences major flooding in Delaware River floods of 2004, 2005, and 2006. The property owner is a major utility in Pennsylvania who bough the land several years ago as "buffer" property for their power generating stations. After the 2004 flood, the owner reviewed the status of the cottages and determined to terminate the leases and demolish the structure. The tenants, many of whom were emotionally attached to these summer cottages, sued the owner in an attempt to hang on to the cottages. Part of the tenants claim was that the utility intentionally spilled water at one of the hydroelectric reservoirs during the next flood in 2005 to worsen the flooding at the cottages. The court case involved aspects of reservoir operations, flood storage, as well as issues related to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provisions for communities to require compliant reconstruction after substantial damage. At the time of the writing of this abstract, the case had not yet gone to trial.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Cleighton Smith Cleighton Smith, PE, CFM is a Sr Project Manager in Dewberry's Mt. Laurel, NJ office. He is a water resources engineer with 28 years of experience in floodplain management/flood insurance issues. He has been with Dewberry since 1998.

92

Nationwide Flood Vulnerability Assessment Using the HAZUS Flood Model

Philip J. Schneider, AIA, Hazards Risk Assessment Program National Institute of Building Sciences Vince Brown, FEMA Mitigation HAZUS Program Neil Blais, ABS Consulting Abstract

FEMA is developing a national risk assessment for flooding throughout the United States using HAZUSMH in a manner similar to the national risk study for earthquake (FEMA 366) and the new risk study for hurricanes. Flooding, however, is a more difficult hazard to assess on a nationwide basis using a tool like HAZUS because of local variations in topography, geography, geology, and the presence of structures, such as levees and dams that alter the flow of rivers and streams. However, since a number of states in the U.S. have undertaken or plan to undertake statewide flood vulnerability studies using HAZUS-MH, the results of these studies will be "stitched" together, with the support of state and local agencies responsible for flood mitigation. The National Institute of Building Sciences, under the direction of FEMA, is leveraging these studies so that the results may be used at the Federal level by FEMA in producing a nationwide snapshot of flood vulnerability by state. This nationwide picture will form a baseline that may be updated over time using the HAZUS tool as conditions change and will be valuable in managing flood risk at the national level. The HAZUS-MH flood model enables users to first characterize flooding and then estimate the expected levels of damage and loss to buildings and infrastructure, as well as the effects on people. The newly released version MR2 has been optimized for faster processing speed and greater reliability, and utilizes ArcGIS 9.1, the most current version of ESRI's software. A session is proposed that will focus on the capabilities of the new software for statewide flood loss analysis as a measure of flood risk. HAZUS-MH (Multihazard) has been developed by FEMA, under contracts with the National Institute of Building Sciences. This decision support tool allows users to assess riverine and coastal flooding scenarios and estimate potential physical damage and economic loss to all types of buildings, facilities, transportation and utility lifelines, and agricultural areas.

93

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN AN URBAN WATERSHED Case Study - Glenville

James M. Eisenhardt, Senior Consultant Duffield Associates, Inc. With the State of Delaware Department of Transportation, Stanton, Delaware Abstract

This presentation will explore a case study (Glenville Wetlands Mitigation Bank) for "Ecological Restoration" in an urban watershed. It will focus on how creative project funding/partnering and management made multiple watershed improvement goals achievable for this watershed. Duffield Associates, Inc. was contracted by the State of Delaware Department of Transportation to create and restore forested wetlands (about 30 acres) and upland riparian floodplains (about 25 acres) within an active floodplain/floodway of the Red Clay Creek at the fall zone (Piedmont/Coastal Plain regions). The project is actually located in a highly urbanized landscape, within a developed area that was once a neighborhood. The Glenville development was a typical neighborhood constructed during the 1950's which bordered the Red Clay Creek in Northern Delaware, until a series of flood events led to the destruction and eventual buyout of approximately 85 % of the homes. The initial focus of the project was to serve as a flood mitigation/storage program, and has since evolved into a broader project meeting multiple watershed improvement objectives such as wetlands creation/restoration/preservation. The Red Clay Creek runs adjacent to the west side of the site, while a tributary to Hershey Run borders the east side of the site. The basis of the wetland design was to tie-in with the existing wetlands associated with the tributary without substantially altering the stream morphology. The tie-in to existing adjacent wetlands while still maintaining the current stream hydrology has proven to be a difficult challenge. The preliminary stage of the project involved razing 162 homes and associated infrastructure within the neighborhood. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material was excavated in the creation of a pilot project of six acres of wetlands, connecting to the existing wetland ecosystem. The excavated area was stabilized with native wetland seed mixes and approximately 18,000 native trees, including: sycamore, green ash, silver and red maples, tulip poplar, pin oak, and black willow. Although the persistence of invasive species throughout the constructed wetlands is a concern, the plantings seem to have adopted well during the first growing season. The new ecosystem has even attracted various herons and egrets, as well as a few bald eagle sightings. Future plans include increasing the initial six acres to upwards of 30+ acres of wetland creation/restoration and 20 acres of preservation, as part of a Wetlands Mitigation Bank, as well as the incorporation of parkland with a potential boardwalk/trail and an interpretive education center. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: James M. Eisenhardt Mr. Eisenhardt has over 20 years of experience in wetlands delineation, mitigation site searches, wetlands mitigation feasibility and design and development of mitigation banks. He is a recognized expert in Section 404/401 regulatory programs of the Clean Water Act, assisting clients to obtain regulatory approvals for highly sensitive projects and is also familiar with numerous regulatory programs. His regulatory expertise includes marinas, beach front development, dredging, ports, infrastructure and commercial development. His mitigation feasibility and design experience includes tidal/coastal marshes, bottomland forests, and wet flats. Mr. Eisenhardt is a leader in innovative and creative approaches to administering mitigation banks and finding creative alternatives. He has authored/co-authored numerous white papers on behalf of the regulatory community that set out reasonable approaches and standards for litigation which are being used today in several states. Mr. Eisenhardt has a B.S. and M.S. in Biology from Bucknell University.

94

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM (AVERY COUNTY, NC)

Christopher L. Yow, P.E., CFM, Project Engineer, Buck Engineering (Michael Baker) Lloyd Dixon, P.E., Project Engineer, Buck Engineering (Michael Baker) Shawn Wilkerson, Vice-President, Charlotte Office Manager, Buck Engineering Abstract

During September of 2004, western North Carolina, including Avery County, was battered by back-to-back hurricanes, Frances and Ivan. Many areas received record rainfall depths, up to twenty-one inches over the course of ten days, and as a result experienced unusual peak discharges, resulting in severe damage to the streams, floodplains, structures and adjacent roadways. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services reported that a loss of over $75 million in agriculture revenue throughout the state. Because of this disaster, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) made available grant funding through the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program and the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management (NCDEM) for the repair of areas hardest hit. Avery County received $2.92 million from the EWP and $0.5 million from the NCDEM. Remediation of the impacted streams consisted of a fast-track process beginning with assessment and ending with construction. In Avery County, the program included 104 impacted stream sites, which totaled approximately five miles of riverine enhancements. Beginning in March of 2005, initial site assessments performed by the NRCS were evaluated for design by a contracted team of engineers and construction management consultants. Design concepts ranged from minor adjustments to stream geometry, structural placement, bioengineering and other conventional bed and bank stabilization techniques to entire horizontal and vertical channel realignment. In addition to establishing channel and floodplain stability, the proposed treatments also incorporated design criteria including the protection of private and public property such as houses, utilities and roadway embankments that were damaged or threatened as a result of the floods. Once the designs received permits and easements approved, more than twenty local contractors provided construction and planting services with the aid of construction oversight by the contracted consultants. Construction cost totaled nearly $3 million, while engineering (design, permitting and easement coordination services) costs remained within $0.5 million. The project duration from the initial grant applications through construction was completed in less that one calendar year. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Christopher L. Yow Mr. Yow has four years of experience in water resources engineering, including coastal and riverine floodplain management; stormwater best management practice design; and hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality modeling. At Buck Engineering, he prepares hydrologic/hydraulic studies and design and planning documents for stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and stream/wetland restoration. Mr. Yow also has extensive experience integrating geographic information systems (GIS) with water resources related projects. Mr. Yow holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from the Civil Engineering Department at North Carolina State University.

95

D-2 New Perspectives In Hurricanes and Recovery: Flooded Buildings ­ Recovery Moderator: Ronald Miner, PE, CDM Historic Preservation in Light of Historic Devastation

Mike J. Robinson, CFM, REM Creative Services Manager, PBS&J Abstract

Hurricane Katrina impacted a significant number of historic buildings and cultural assets in the Gulf Coast region, from Pascagoula, Mississippi to New Orleans, Louisiana, raising many questions and issues related to how well these structures and sites responded to the storm and what steps can or should be taken to restore them and mitigate them against future losses. These questions are not new to the 2005 Hurricane Season--other events in recent years, both large and small, have caused similar problems in the field of historic preservation and communities should be encouraged to more thoroughly research and address historic structures as part of their local hazard mitigation planning efforts. The proposed presentation for the 2007 conference will seek to address some of the broader issues involved in this discussion as well as a few specific ones, and offer a combination of proven techniques for mitigating damages, new approaches for assessing vulnerability, and additional resources for putting a plan or program together. Preliminary Outline · Introduction The introduction will establish the scope of the discussion and outline the events that will be included in the presentation. Likely flood events to be covered include: Hurricane Katrina (2005), the 2004 Hurricane Season, Hurricane Floyd (1999), the Midwest Floods (1993), Hurricane Andrew (1992) and Hurricane Camille (1969). Characteristics of Historic Structures This section will include discussion of elevation, structural systems, foundation types and retrofitting as it relates to historic buildings, in addition to other characteristics such as age and architectural style, and how these factors can be analyzed relative to the flood hazard. Effects of Flood Damage Discussion of the effects of flood damage will include inundation by floodwaters, damage from storm surge and wave action, floodborne debris, mold, and other flood-related impacts. Mitigation Techniques This section will cover various options and issues associated with relocation, elevation, retrofitting, mothballing and other mitigation techniques for historic structures. Conclusions and Recommendations General conclusions and recommendations may be presented to offer the audience a sense of accomplishment and take-away knowledge for local or state application. This may also include references to printed publications, Web sites and online resources, fact sheets, contact

·

·

·

·

96

information, etc. · Closing Comments and Q/A

The presentation itself will be highly visual, utilizing a detailed library of pre-event/post-event images of historic properties, graphics illustrating various flood scenarios, diagrams of relevant mitigation techniques, and other multimedia resources. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mike J. Robinson Mr. Robinson is currently manager of the REM Creative Services group, a five-person team that supports PBS&J's Risk and Emergency Management discipline in the areas of emergency management and floodplain management specific publication, graphic design and technical writing services. Having served in several past capacities as a hazard mitigation planner, he also has particular expertise in risk assessment visualization and hazard mapping. As a member of the FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) working in the Mississippi Gulf Coast and southern Louisiana immediately following Hurricane Katrina and for months after helping to develop the MAT report on Katrina, Mr. Robinson was able to gain unique insight into the impacts of flooding and other natural hazards on historic structures and cultural assets.

Repetitive Loss Mitigation Data Modeling

Dale Kirby, Lead Programmer, Solutient Abstract

The value of FEMA's Repetitive Loss Mapping Project was demonstrated repeatedly in the immediate aftermath of Katrina and Rita. The hidden challenges to GIS specialists lay in the integration of multiple data sources to the base map. This presentation takes a look behind the successes and examines the challenges in building the file. The myriad data entrenched in the many branches of the Rep Loss project come from many sources and in many formats. This data includes tabular data such as property information, insurance claims information, and mitigation status. Additionally, there are spatial data sets such as geographic features and area-study result data. Due to this variation in data formats and sources, a master data warehouse is necessary to manage and catalog the available information. The most difficult aspect of designing a master data warehouse is planning how to manage the wide variety of data. In some cases, data updates must be pulled from outside sources at regular intervals into the master warehouse. However, in many instances the master warehouse data has corrections to previously imported third party data. These corrections must be maintained and not overwritten at the next data import. Therefore careful consideration is made to ensure that when performing data updates the history is preserved and that correct data is not lost. Another crucial consideration in the warehouse design is the integration of GIS information with nonspatial tabular information. Through a combination of geocoding, ground surveys, and other techniques every property in the system was given a spatial coordinate and plotted into the GIS. The property and claims information available from existing databases is often taken from surveyors on the ground using GPS. In these cases, spatial coordinates are easily assigned. However, in many cases poorly formatted addresses are the only available geographic reference for a given property and a combination of geocoding and visual confirmation was used to determine the exact property location.

97

Once a definitive GIS-mapped location for a property has been established, the full power of the GIS can be brought to bear in mitigating the property. A unique method of identifying clusters of hardest-hit areas was devised incorporating the storm water drainage network and establishing drainage sub-basins into which clearly defined clusters of Rep Loss properties were highlighted. These sub-basins became the focus areas of the case studies and outreach, some of which are discussed on this panel. In sum, the master data warehouse enables the merging of multiple Rep Loss data sources into one system under which queries and reports are driven. The methods used in maintaining the data ensure that new property information is 1) always collected and 2) updated along with the existing information, thereby assuring the best information available with which to analyze flood patterns.

A New Perspective on Elevation: Bringing Substantially Damaged Historic Buildings into Compliance

Monica Farris, Ph.D., Assistant Director, University of New Orleans ­CHART French Wetmore, CFM, Floodplain Management Consultant, French & Assoc. Sarah Stack, MPA, Research Associate, University of New Orleans - CHART Abstract

An "area analysis" of the Broadmoor Neighborhood located in Orleans Parish revealed the challenges of mitigating historic homes with a unique architectural style. The Broadmoor Neighborhood was selected for analysis based on the repetitive flooding problem that existed prior to Hurricane Katrina. In fact, of the houses examined for the area analysis, 61% were designated by FEMA as repetitive loss properties; 35% were designated as severe. What makes this neighborhood unique, as well as a challenge for flood mitigation, is its historic designation and the architectural style of most of the homes found in the area. This style is known as "raised basement" (i.e., above ground basement). A team from the University of New Orleans Center for Hazards Assessment, Response & Technology (CHART) has been working with residents of the Broadmoor Neighborhood to overcome the challenges related to raised basement homes and flood mitigation efforts. Challenges include historic designation which limits the type of mitigation that can occur; the original intended use of a raised basement versus the conversion of the basement to living space; availability of funding for the projects; and a mortgage based on living area located in the raised basement, where most of the flooding occurs. The team will discuss its efforts in working with the Broadmoor residents in overcoming these challenges through the elevation of the living space of the raised basements. This type of mitigation will serve as multi-objective floodproofing that will bring the structures to compliance, reduce the number of flood claims to the NFIP, address homeowner concerns, and maintain the historic designation maintained by the neighborhood. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Monica Farris Dr. Monica Farris is the Assistant Director of the Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology (CHART) at the University of New Orleans (UNO). She received her MA degree from Louisiana State University and PhD degree from the University of New Orleans, both in Political Science the latter with a public policy specialization. Her current research includes a FEMA funded project that examines local repetitive flood loss data to assist communities in the identification of appropriate

98

mitigation strategies and serving as principal investigator for the UNO Disaster Resistant University Project.

Old Perspectives with a New Name: Multi-objective Floodplain Management at the Neighborhood Level

Sarah Stack, MPA, Research Associate,University of New Orleans ­CHART French Wetmore, CFM, Floodplain Management Consultant, French & Assoc. Michael Wesley, CFM, Director of GIS, Solutient Abstract

The traditional area analysis is a useful means of determining if a flood protection measure should be pursued at the neighborhood level, either as a drainage system improvement or by redeveloping one or more parcels. Researchers from the Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology (CHART) at the University of New Orleans (UNO) are taking this process one step further. This paper will demonstrate the innovative use of the area analysis as a tool for identifying neighborhood appropriate individual mitigation measures and outreach. During the Fall of 2006, CHART conducted an area analysis in the Broadmoor neighborhood, located in the Uptown area of New Orleans. This project was supported by local officials, however CHART team members worked more closely with the neighborhood association and the residents. This relationship produced specific individual mitigation measures that were appropriate for this neighborhood. In addition to identifying the appropriate mitigation measures for Broadmoor, the CHART team members also conducted neighborhood outreach to Broadmoor residents about the implementation of these measures, and possible funding opportunities. As an extension of the project, follow up work regarding specific neighborhood issues, such as mitigating architecturally significant structures and national and local historical designations, has been done. Also, policy recommendations reflecting the findings of these more detailed analyses are currently under review. Finally, the area analysis helps the local community receive CRS credits, decreasing the cost of flood insurance premiums community wide. This is a more thorough approach to the standard FEMA area analysis. It produces a comprehensive perspective of the flooding problem within a community and sets an example for the nation regarding the benefits of resident participation throughout the process. This perspective is useful to local floodplain managers and to the community as it can have a positive effect on neighborhood planning efforts, future drainage projects, and it motivates individual homeowners to take proactive measures to protect themselves from future flooding. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Sarah Stack Sarah Stack is a Research Associate for the Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology (CHART) at the University of New Orleans (UNO). She received a Bachelors degree from Louisiana State University, her Masters degree from the University of New Orleans in Public Administration, and is pursuing a doctoral degree in Urban Studies with a specialization in disaster policy from the University of New Orleans. Her current research includes the examination of local repetitive flood loss data to assist communities in the identification of appropriate mitigation strategies; and the impact of neighborhoodprivate partnerships on local community disaster resiliency.

99

D-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Assessing Damage Avoided

Moderator: Steve McMaster, CFM, Nebraska Dept Nat. Resources

Greenville County's Action Plan to Alleviate Structure Flooding

Steve G. Godfrey, P.E., CFM, Senior Associate, Woolpert, Inc. Jason Gillespie, Programs Administrator, Greenville County Soil & Water Conservation District Abstract

Community officials across the country are bombarded with citizen complaints after the occurrence of major and/or minor flooding events. Officials in Greenville County, SC, which has over 1,600 structures located within regulated floodplains, experience just that. In 1999, the Greenville County council set in place a flood mitigation task force to investigate and help reduce the countywide flooding problem. The task force's three recommendations were to enact ordinance changes and program modifications to prevent any new homes from being built in the floodplain, develop watershed master plans to address the structures in the floodplain, and let the floodplains flood. The highest priority, and the first watershed that the County identified to conduct a study on, was the Brushy Creek watershed. Greenville County had been receiving citizen complaints of flooding for over 20 years by residents living adjacent to Brushy Creek. Brushy Creek, which conveys approximately 15 square miles of storm water runoff, is heavily populated with land uses ranging from commercial property to private residences and is essentially built out. Woolpert was contracted by Greenville County to develop a storm water master plan in order to address the flooding issues along Brushy Creek and identify and analyze several alternatives for resolving the citizen complaints. As part of the master plan, Woolpert conducted hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of existing conditions using the USACE software HEC-HMS (Hydrologic model) and HEC-RAS (Hydraulic model) to predict flows and water surface elevations for Brushy Creek. Woolpert also surveyed over 240 structures located within the 100-year floodplain to be used during the alternative analysis. Of these structures surveyed, 153 were identified as having first-floor flooding in the 100-year event, with 28 of these structures also having first-floor flooding in the 10-year event. Several regional and local structural flood control options were evaluated for the Brushy Creek watershed, but all provided minimal protection to the flood-prone structures. As a result, the County's only option was to develop a Structure Mitigation Action Plan. The main objective of this plan would be a voluntary buyout program. The first step in the development of the Structure Mitigation Action Plan was to identify flood-prone structures, neighborhoods, and communities and evaluate each in terms of the following: potential risk of loss of life by either inundation of structure or inability of emergency vehicles/ personnel to access property due to inundation of access routes; loss of property; and, continuity of normal business and livelihoods of persons living in the at-risk areas. A prioritization policy was then developed, and this information was used to rank the structures based on the flooding storm event, inundation of access to the property, continuity of the community and neighborhoods, and a benefit/cost ratio if applicable. There were 37 structures identified in the highest priority category, and the County is beginning the steps necessary for purchase of these properties on a voluntary basis. Because the traditional FEMA benefit/cost ratios are well below 1.0 for several of the

100

problem areas along Brushy Creek, acquiring FEMA or federal funds for acquisition of these structures will be difficult, requiring the County to seek other sources of supplemental funding. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mr. Godfrey has worked with Woolpert, Inc. in Charlotte, North Carolina for over 12 years. He has both a Master of Science and a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from North Carolina State University. He has specialized in the use of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to develop Storm Water Master Plans and design alternatives to existing flooding problems. He has used many of the popular computer models on the market today and has written several of his own programs to aid in the transfer of model data between GIS and other H&H models.

Case Study Evaluation of Flood Loss Mitigation Benefits Using Various Flood Loss Estimation Methodologies

Edwin Revell, EI, CFM, Flood Plain Administrator, City of Birmingham Denise Pruitt, CFM, Project Planner-Flood Plain Management, City of Birmingham Abstract

Calculated flood loss mitigation benefits provide extremely important information needed for effectively implementing and evaluating sound floodplain management and flood mitigation program related activities. In the past, calculated flood loss mitigation benefits have been used for preparing flood mitigation plans, performing flood hazard risk assessments and as a basis for evaluating proposed flood mitigation projects. More recently, calculated flood loss benefits are being used for measuring performance of implemented flood mitigation projects using loss avoidance analysis. However, in all of these applications, especially the most recent application, it is imperative that the best available flood loss estimation data and methodologies are employed. Consequently, this presentation will examine and compare the use of calculated flood loss mitigation benefits for measuring the performance of implemented flood mitigation projects employing three flood loss estimation methodologies. The City of Birmingham through its partnership with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has acquired over 1200 floodplain properties. Using a representative subset of these properties, a comparison of the calculated flood loss mitigation benefits (or of the dollar value of the flood losses avoided) will be presented using the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) loss estimation method (i.e. traditional FIA depth-damage curves), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) flood loss estimation method (i.e. US Corps developed depth-damage curves), and the HAZUSMH Flood Loss Estimation Methodology (i.e. depth-damage curves employed in the HAZUS-MH Flood Module). The calculated flood loss mitigation benefits for these properties using the three different flood loss estimation methods mentioned above will be presented and discussed. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of each flood loss estimation method along with suggestions for using these methods in evaluating the performance of implemented flood mitigation projects will be presented and discussed. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Edwin Revell Edwin Revell is a graduate of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) where he received a both a Bachelor's of Science Degree and a Master's of Science Degree in Civil Engineering. He is currently employed by the City of Birmingham and works in the Administration Division of the Department of Planning, Engineering & Permits as the City's Flood Plain Administrator. He has over 12 years of floodplain management experience and has served of the City's Flood Plain Administrator for

101

approximately 6 years. During his tenure as Floodplain Administrator, he has secured over $15 million in flood mitigation grants, completed the acquisition of 500 floodplain properties, and has secured a Community Rating System Program Class 6 designation for the City's floodplain management program.

Losses Avoided as a Result of FEMA Mitigation Projects Along the Red River in North Dakota

Doug Bausch, Physical Scientist, FEMA Region VIII Jeanine D. Petterson, Division Director, Federal Insurance & Mitigation, FEMA RegVIII Abstract

Demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of mitigation in reducing flood losses is critical in the continued success of FEMA mitigation programs. In a recent report commissioned by Congress, the Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC) determined that for each dollar spent on mitigation activities, 4 dollars were saved in future losses. We are building on the results of the MMC work and studied the losses avoided as a result of FEMA mitigation activities along the Red River in North Dakota. We are approaching the 10 year anniversary of the Grand Forks 1997 Red River Flood Disaster that had some $3.7B in total losses, compared to the recent 2006 disaster that had a reported $6.5M in total losses in North Dakota. Remarkably, the 2006 event in some places matched the 1997 flood heights and is generally considered the 3rd highest flood event in the historical record for the Red River in North Dakota. FEMA in partnership with the State of North Dakota and local jurisdictions have completed a significant number of mitigation projects largely since the catastrophic 1997 Red River flooding in the areas impacted by the near record flooding in April 2006. This study was conducted by FEMA mitigation staff and URS contractors that included field data collection and analysis of the performance of acquisition projects in five counties (Richland, Grand Forks, Cass (City of Fargo), Traill and Pembina) along the Red River. We determined the depth of flooding using high resolution DEM data and high water marks in relation to FEMA Mitigation Projects from the 2006 event, a repeat of the 1997 Red River Flood Disaster, as well as the 100 year base flood elevation. The potential losses avoided were measured using HAZUS-MH flood model depth-loss relationships. The data allowed for an estimate of losses avoided for the 2006 event through past mitigation activities, as well as potential assessments based on a repeat of the 1997 Red River Flood Disaster, as well as probabilistic flood events. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Doug Bausch Doug Bausch is the FEMA Region VIII Physical Scientist in Denver, Colorado. He assists States and communities in developing sound risk assessments to support all hazard mitigation planning, including the incorporation of FEMA's HAZUS Loss Estimation and Map Modernization programs. Before starting with FEMA in May of 2001, he was both a Research Associate at Northern Arizona University and a Consulting Engineering Geologist with a southern California firm for 11 years. His research and consulting efforts primarily included preparing General Plans for local governments that addressed seismic safety, land use, and code adoption issues to reduce the impacts of natural disasters and improve community sustainability in a disaster. Recently, these efforts have benefited from FEMA's HAZUS (HAZards U.S.) loss-estimation software. HAZUS is used to evaluate and prioritize mitigation measures, to evaluate risk and support code-adoption. Doug is an experienced HAZUS user and is one of only a few certified instructors nation-wide.

102

Doug Bausch Physical Scientist, Mitigation Division, FEMA Region VIII Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 710, Box 25267 Denver, CO 80225 Phone (303) 235-4859, Fax (303) 235-4849, Cell (303) 263-0949 [email protected] Jeanine D. Petterson Division Director Federal Insurance & Mitigation FEMA RVIII Denver Federal Center, Buildling 710A Denver, CO 80225-0267 303.235.4610 (office) 303.941.9331 (cell) [email protected]

What's Wrong With My FEMA BCA?

Don Glondys, CFM, Principal Risk Analyst, URS Corporation Shabbar Saifee, Chief, Grants Analysis and Tools Section, Mitigation Div., FEMA HQ Brooke Griggs, Senior Risk Analyst, URS Corporation Abstract

Mitigation projects submitted for consideration under all of FEMA's cost-shared mitigation grant programs must demonstrate cost-effective investment. Currently, FEMA Benefit- Cost Analysis (BCA) modules are used to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of proposed mitigation projects under the FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), and the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) programs. This presentation will briefly discuss current BCA tools provided by FEMA. The presentation will also provide a brief review of lessons learned from the PDM and RFC application and technical reviews. Finally, we also wish to solicit input from BCA users and applicants on ways to improve the FEMA BCA process. The BCA Toolkit includes FEMA sponsored BCA training materials used at the state and regional level. The current CD Version 3.0 (2006) includes numerous mitigation BCA modules and the BCA Checklist and Data Documentation Templates. Further, FEMA funds the year-round BCA Helpline for inquiries about data input requirements and the appropriate use of the BCA modules. Under the FEMA grant programs, the proper use of the BCA modules has become more important due to the need to provide full technical documentation and credible data in support of each BCA run submitted. FEMA must evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all eligible grant activities on the basis of the BCA and technical data submitted by applicants in support of their grant applications. For some BC analysts, the process can be unnecessarily overwhelming and appear complicated. The goal of this session is to break the requirements down into their basic elements so that BCA preparers not only understand what is needed, but why certain data are essential for completing an acceptable BCA.

103

The presentation will focus on the lessons learned from the 2006 and 2007 PDM and RFC technical reviews and how these lessons apply to the BCAs required under the FEMA programs. Topics for discussion during the presentation: Overview of the BCA portion of the grant application process Preparation of well documented applications Keys to avoiding common BCA oversights Suggestions for submission of successful applications Panelists Jody Springer (FEMA) ­ Agency Lead for BCA Shabbar Saifee (FEMA) ­ Chief, Grants Data Analysis and Tools Section Brooke Griggs, PE, CFM (URS) - Senior BCA Risk Analyst Donald Glondys, CFM (URS) ­ Corporate Lead for FEMA BCA Point of Contact: Don Glondys (URS) Phone: 312-697-7237 (direct) Fax: 312-939-4198 Email: [email protected]

104

D-4 Going Coastal: Map Modernization at the Coast Moderator: Sue Hoegberg, Dewberry Coastal Barrier Resources System Map Modernization

Stephen Kalaf, CFM, Special Mapping Service Department Manager, Dewberry Kati Niemi, National Coastal Barrier Coordinator, US Fish & Wildlife Service Abstract

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for oversight of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), comprising over 3 million acres of protected coastal areas in 21 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The CBRS, which is authorized by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA), takes a market-based approach to conservation by restricting any form of federal funding (including Federal flood insurance) that encourages development in high-risk and biologically rich coastal habitats. Boundaries of the CBRS are depicted on a series of 625 Congressionally-adopted maps created in 1982 using antiquated manual ink-on-paper cartographic methods. The maps are not suited to today's GIS-based environment, thereby making precise boundary determinations and geo-spatial analyses problematic, and overall management of the program difficult. The maps have also been found to be largely inaccurate due to limitation associated with the base map used when the maps were originally created. The official congressionally-adopted maps of the CBRS are maintained and revised by the FWS, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency shows CBRS boundaries on their Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The 2000 Coastal Barrier Reauthorization Act authorized a digital pilot project to begin the map modernization process. The project resulted in the modernization of 60 CBRS units (7% of the CBRS) and was delivered to Congress this year for approval. The new modernized maps build in previously unrealized accuracy and precision while enabling spatial analyses and data export functionality. Key features of the modernization initiative are the use of recent Digital Orthophotos, digital parcel data, digital wetlands data, and historical legislative records to ensure the new maps are accurate and mirror intent. The modernized CBRS maps are created using state of the art digital technology with USGS Digital Orthophoto imagery as the base map. CBRS boundaries on these maps are placed after extensive analysis of digital property parcel data, National Wetlands Inventory data, and legislative records documenting the Congressional intent for each CBRS boundary line. The modernized GIS-friendly maps provide previously unrealized accuracy and precision, while correcting prior mapping errors and reflecting the original intent of Congress. The modernized maps also facilitate ease of update, ease of boundary determinations and a wide variety of GIS spatial analysis applications. The presentation will outline the status of the map modernization initiative, the impact this initiative will have on the NFIP and FEMA's FIRMs, the challenges and lessons learned, the next steps being considered, new tools being developed for community awareness and compliance, and how local jurisdictions will ultimately benefit.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Stephen (Steve) Kalaf Stephen (Steve) Kalaf, CFM, is the Quality Officer for flood hazard assessment and mapping and is also the Special Mapping Services Department Manager, specializing in the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Steve has 28 years of experience with the NFIP and is considered a technical, programmatic and mapping expert in flood study production as well as CBRS analysis and mapping. He has developed quality and information management systems for flood hazard assessment and mapping contracts and has played a key role in the development of many new techniques and procedures associated with FEMA's

105

map modernization initiative. Steve was also a primary contributor to FEMA's Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. Steve's and his team of QA/QC specialists and thematic mapping and research analysts serve several FEMA contracts as well as a contract with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to provide programmatic, technical and mapping services as well as help them in their CBRS Map Modernization program.

Coastal Storm Surge and Flood Modeling due to Natural Hazards

J. G. Boon, M.Sc., WL Delft Hydraulics Abstract

The world climate is changing at a faster rate then earlier estimated. As a consequence of global climate change, we may expect in future more frequent occurrences of severe and extreme weather conditions like tropical cyclones (typhoons or hurricanes) and torrential rainfall. A tsunami flood wave produced by an earth quake or under water landslide is another example of a natural disaster. The devastating coastal impact of both types of disasters are shown evidently to the world community by e.g. the December 2004 tsunami that ravaged the Indian Ocean and took an enormous toll on human life and caused immense damage along the coastal areas and more recently the Katrina hurricane with a destructive impact in and around New Orleans. To minimize the impact of any future coastal hazard event, the reconstruction and rehabilitation must be accompanied by improvement of coastal protection and safety. To assist responsible authorities in disaster management and relief efforts, early flood warning system based on advanced modeling tools with easy interpretable outputs has been developed. The system must have a link to a Decision Support System (DSS) to analyze input/output data from the models, to integrate the model output automatically with spatial data information from a database containing e.g. data on population, infrastructure (for example the location of shelters), communication lines and socio-economic status of the population. As part of such a forecasting system, numerical modeling plays an essential role in simulating the generation, propagation of storm surges and tsunami's and the development of future flood hazard maps. For a suitable use, such modeling framework must be accurate, robust and computationally efficient. WL| Delft Hydraulics have developed and maintains a powerful in-house software package called Delft3D, focusing primarily on application in the free surface water environment. The hydrodynamics module (Delft3D-FLOW) simulates non-steady flows in relatively shallow water. It incorporates the effects of tides, winds, air pressure, density (due to salinity and temperature) differences, waves, turbulence (both k- model as well as an advanced Large-Eddy simulation routine) and drying and flooding of tidal flats. The Delft3D modeling system has been enhanced to accommodate the simulation of hurricanes and typhoons through the incorporation of a wind-enhanced scheme (WES). This scheme uses data about the maximum wind velocities and the actual pressure drop to generate the wind patterns and pressures associated with the storm based on the theory of Richard Holland (Hurricane parametric model) and improved by the UK Met Office. The information is projected on a circular grid. Our hurricane modeling approach has been applied successfully in projects in India and Vietnam and for hind-casting the Katrina hurricane. For the coastal flooding simulations a numerical flood scheme has been applied that combines the efficiency of staggered grids with conservation properties to ensure accurate results for rapidly varying flows. In addition various numerical experiments have been carried out to better understand the dynamics of tsunami generation, propagation and flooding and to support the restoration efforts of habitats (coral reef, mangroves and wetlands). A high resolution nested model of Aceh (Indonesia) was applied to simulate the coastal flooding as a result of the 2004 tsunami waves. Details of the bathymetry on land were resolved

106

using the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM). Comparisons of the modelled results were made with survey data and flooding pictures made from satellite. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: J. G. Boon Mr. Boon has a broad experience in projects related to water quality and its management. As a senior advisor he has been involved in a wide variety of projects and studies related to the integrated analysis of hydrodynamics, water quality and ecology and the development and applications of assessment tools in estuarine and marine systems. He is an expert in the field of fine sediments dynamics, toxic substances and the risk assessment of calamitous (chemical) oil spills. He is also involved in the development of methodologies for the linkage of remote sensing information, monitoring data and modeling results to get a better understanding of water quality and ecology in coastal and marine systems. Mr Boon has lectured various courses on water quality and sediment modeling with Delft3D.

Storm Surge and Tsunami Modeling for Coastal Urban Flood Mitigation

Jim S. O'Brien, Ph.D., P.E., President, FLO-2D Software, Inc. Reinaldo Garcia, Senior Hydraulic Engineer, FLO-2D Software, Inc. Abstract

The area of flood inundation in coastal urban zone due to storm surge or tsunami wave is primarily governed by surge or wave volume. This is the water volume that overtops the coastal beach areas or sea walls. The water volume must be bulked with sediment (20% or more concentration by volume) to accurately estimate the area of inundation. The final maximum flow depths and the extent of the area of inundation are also controlled by street flow, channels, loss of storage due to buildings and obstructions, flood control structures such as levees and berms and their failure. The additional source of flood water is rainfall which is significant and must be analyzed with potential infiltration. Based on an analysis of the design storm using available surge and tsunami wave models, a time stage relationship for flooding can be established at the coastline. These time stage relationships can be modified to include multiple tsunami wave surges or hurricane wind induced surges. Ultimately these storm surges or tsunami wave time stage relationships will dictate the flood volume and area of inundation. In this paper we show the application of the FLO-2D two-dimensional flood routing model as a design tool to enable effective flood mitigation due to storm surges or tsunamis in urban coastal areas. FLO-2D is a volume conservation flood routing model and all of the critical factors associated with urban coastal flooding can be simulated with it. This includes street flow, building loss of storage, berm and levee failure, rainfall and infiltration, and sediment bulking. It can also route flows in channels with a seamless channel-floodplain interface so that rivers leading to coastal zones can be simulated. The FLO-2D model has a levee breach component to simulate levee or dam failure during the flood simulation. The breach routine is based on the National Weather Service BREACH model developed by Fread (1988). This breach routine enables piping and breach failure in concert with the FLO-2D computation time step to simulate levee and dam collapse during flooding. This provides a tool to define urban flood hazards associated with levee collapse during coastal flooding such as occurred during the 2005 Katrina Hurricane in New Orleans. A FLO-2D application at Waikiki Beach in Honolulu Hawaii is used demonstrate the importance of correctly assessing the potential storm surge or tsunami flooding. Altering the stage time relationships for varying storm duration or wave heights results in significant variation in the area of inundation. The

107

effect of including streets leading away from the coast on the area of inundation is also presented. The AlaWai canal running through the center of City of Waikiki Beach is shown to mitigate some of the inland flooding. Mitigation at the coast line in the form of seas walls is also tested. Automated hazard maps are generated in the FLO-2D Mapper post-processor program to delineate the areas of potential loss of life and structure failure. A damage assessment routine enables the assignment of damages cost associated with a design flood event. Jimmy S. O'Brien, Ph.D., P.E., President, FLO-2D Software, Inc., Nutrioso, AZ 85932, (928) 339-1935, [email protected] 2 Reinaldo Garcia, Ph.D., Senior Hydraulic Engineer, FLO-2D Software, Inc., Nutrioso, AZ 85932, (928) 339-1935, [email protected]

1

Coastal 500-year Methodology ­ Guidance for Determining the 0.2%-Annual-Chance Coastal Event

Michael Anderson, Region VI, Regional Management Center Program Manager Krista Collier, Technical Specialist, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Jonathan Wescott, Program Specialist, FEMA Headquarters Abstract

Certain critical infrastructures are so vital that their incapacitation or destruction would have debilitating effects on the local and even national level. As a part of its Hazard Mitigation program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provide technical expertise on protective measures for critical infrastructure. This expertise is used in the siting and construction of critical infrastructures such as hospitals and emergency operation centers. FEMA has adopted the criteria that critical infrastructures must built to building standards based on the 0.2%-annualchance flood. Present flood mapping procedures call for the delineation of the area with a 0.2%-annualchance of stillwater inundation. Currently, as a part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) it is required to delineate on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) the area above the 1%-annual-chance (base) flood that is inundated by the 0.2%-annual-chance flood. This area is mapped as shaded Zone X. Present mapping procedures do not include guidance for calculation of the 0.2%-annual-chance wave envelope above the stillwater level due to wave effects. Procedures have been developed for the calculation of the 0.2% annual chance water surface elevation with wave effects. These procedures are largely based on those provided in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Guidelines Update for the determination of the 1.0%-annual-chance flood. In order to use these procedures, modifications of certain parameters (wave height, wind speed, dune reservoir area, etc.) must be made in order to be associated with the 0.2%-annual-chance flood. The recommended procedures and subsequent methodologies to determine frequency-appropriate parameters will be implemented via a procedure memorandum and documented in an associated technical memorandum. In addition to the provision of procedures to calculate the 0.2%-annual-chance flood water surface elevation, the FEMA approved wave models WHAFIS and CHAMP will be modified to accommodate 0.2 %-annual-chance flood computations. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Michael Anderson Michael Anderson is the Region VI Regional Management Center Program Manager for Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in the Denton, TX office. Mr. Anderson has nine years of experience as a water resources engineer specializing in federal projects. Mr. Anderson earned a BS and MS in Civil Engineering from Texas Tech

108

University. Mr. Anderson is a registered professional engineer in Texas and is also a Certified Floodplain Manager. Mr. Anderson is currently responsible for the success of the Map Modernization Program in FEMA Region VI.

109

D-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Education Moderator: Allen Groover, Dewberry Cover Your Community ­ Flood Insurance in High Risk Areas

Mary Jo Vrem, Project Manager, Floodsmart NFIP Marketing Campaign, FEMA Met Bartow, Vice President, Ogilvy Public Relations Bruce A. Bender, Bender Consulting Services, Inc. Abstract

What's the flood risk in your city? If a serious flood were to occur, what percent of your population would be financially protected? Nationwide, more than half of homeowners living in high-risk areas are in significant financial jeopardy because they aren't covered by flood insurance. And yet these high-risk areas are the Special Flood Hazard Areas where flood insurance is required of mortgage-holders! As a floodplain manager, you can make a difference. This presentation will show you how ­ by providing you hard data on flood coverage community-by-community, and a toolkit of information you can use to encourage residents to purchase flood insurance, insure to value, maintain their coverage, and help protect themselves and the place they call home. There are also materials you can share with professional groups so they can join you in making 100% flood protection a priority. The session will also look at how your community can benefit. For example, if you have already taken the preliminary steps to implement floodplain management activities that exceed minimum NFIP requirements, you may be eligible to participate in the Community Rating System (CRS). This program helps enhance public safety while helping members save up to 45% on their flood insurance. Attending this session is the first step towards gaining a deeper understanding of the issues relevant to flood insurance and your role in safeguarding your community. Gain the tools, insights, and best practices that will help you reach the public and educate and leverage realtors, lenders, and insurance agents. Draw on case-studies from around the country to build on lessons learned, and walk away with fact sheets and outreach resources to bolster your efforts. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mary Jo Vrem Mary Jo Vrem is the project manager for the NFIP FloodSmart Program. She joined FEMA in 1994 and worked in the Office of Congressional Affairs prior to moving to the National Flood Insurance Program. Before coming to FEMA she spent 11 years in the United States Senate, serving as professional staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee.

110

EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL FOR NON-FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS

Rod E. Emmer, Ph.D., Associate Professor Research, Louisiana Sea Grant Jim Wilkins, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Director, Sea Grant Legal Program, Louisiana Sea Grant Abstract

In a post-Katrina/Rita environment many professionals had to participate in programs for which they were not prepared. Louisiana Sea Grant Extension Agents (SGEA) are excellent biologists, economists, and engineers, but they are not floodplain managers nor do they know flood damage reduction mitigation measures. More than once traditional Sea Grant clients and SGEAs have been challenged to understand and comply with Federal and state requirements that were unclear and complex. For example, mitigation to the SGEA is wetlands related and means something completely different than mitigation in the context of FEMA programs and flood damage reduction. All too often information from FEMA includes acronyms, phrases, terminology, extraneous details, and extensive discussions that obscure the messages. Although FEMA staff and SGEA speak American English, they are talking in different program languages thus hindering effective coordination and impeding recovery. A Louisiana Sea Grant initiative worked to overcome these communication problems by preparing fact sheets in concise, nontechnical terms and verbiage and in a form and format that is oriented to Louisiana users while maintatining technical accuracy. For example local place names and illustrations were used and the text focused on essential points. An initial set of seven fact sheets was prepared and placed on the Sea Grant Website http://www.lsu.edu/sglegal/pubs/other.htm : Two additional fact sheets were written to address evolving issues before they became problems. Advisory Base Flood Elevations During Rebuilding (144 KB PDF) Building After a Flood And Flood Insurance Q & A (166KB PDF) Glossary of Frequently Used FEMA/NFIP Terms­Acronyms (179KB PDF) Increased Cost of Compliance Program ­ The Basics (158KB PDF) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program ­ Private Non-Profit Organizations (158KB PDF) Travel Trailers in the A-Zone or V-Zone ­ The Basics (153KB PDF) Quick Reference Guide (205KB PDF) How to Help Your Community Keep Its National Flood Insurance Program and Disaster Assistance (137 KB PDF) When Your Home or Business Was Completely Destroyed or Substantially Damaged (210KB PDF). The Louisiana Sea Grant assembled the latest materials and information from FEMA guidance and documents on www.fema.gov, interviews with federal and state personnel, and peer reviews. Except for the fact sheet on Advisory Base Flood Elevations, these products can be used by communities outside the Louisiana coastal zone. Finally, the Louisiana Sea Grant Legal Program will help victims find answers to questions when other sources of assistance are exhausted. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Rod E. Emmer Ph.D. 1974, Oregon State University, Geography. Dissertation on the affect of the National Flood Insurance Program in Oregon. Rod Emmer specializes on the influence and affect of federal and state policies, regulations, and programs such as the National Flood Insurance Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, The Coastal Zone Management Program, and the nonpoint source pollution requirements on the human use of coastal and riverine systems. He has had contracts for developing and implementing a coastal nonpoint pollution

111

program, formulating guidelines for the Mississippi coastal program, organizing and writing two parish local coastal programs, facilitating meetings and workshops, and working with the general public on coastal issues. He has taught courses at Louisiana State University and/or University of New Orleans on Coastal Zone Planning; Environmental Planning; and Coastal Geography. He is one of the founders of the Louisiana Floodplain Management Association and now serves as its Executive Director. He was the ASFPM National Conference Program Chair in 1997 (Little Rock, AK) and the Co-Host Committee Chair for the 2004 ASFPM National Conference in Biloxi, MS. He currently serves as the Chair of the ASFPM Standing Conference Committee. He has been an officer in the Louisiana Chapter, American Planning Association, the Baton Rouge Geological Society, and other professional organizations. R. Emmer has facilitated numerous workshops for federal and state agencies such as, the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Natural Resources, and the Governor's Office of Coastal Activities. He has published on sustainability of floodplains and participated on a University of Washington team developing a Floodplain Management course for the Emergency Management Institute.

FLOODPLAIN MAP UPDATES: EDUCATING LOCAL REALTORS

John P. Callen, CFM, Project Manager, JEO Consulting Group, Inc. Lalit Jha, P.E., CFM, Water Resources Eng. Dept. Manager, JEO Consulting Group, Inc. Devin Biesecker, P.E., Engineer, City of Lincoln, Public Works and Utilities Abstract

Nationwide, communities face numerous challenges when updating their floodplain maps. The challenges include technical issues, such as meeting floodplain mapping standards, as well as the need to educate the community about the floodplain map updates and how they will be utilized. The City of Lincoln, Nebraska is in the process of updating floodplain maps for several streams as a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Cooperating Technical Partner. For these studies, after completion of the map update technical review by FEMA, the City has been adopting each study locally as best available information for floodplain regulation purposes. This allows the City to ensure that the best available flood hazard information is available to the public. However, the local adoption of a flood study does not supersede the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Due to this, local realtors have faced the challenges of addressing the flood insurance implications of locally adopted maps that will be reflected on the FIRM in the future and how to disclose this information as a part of real estate transactions. In response to these concerns, the City of Lincoln, in association with the Realtors Association of Lincoln, has implemented an educational program for local realtors. The goal of the program is to provide information about the City of Lincoln's floodplain map updates and the process of locally adopting updated flood hazard information. It also provides basic information about the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), floodplain management, and flood insurance as well as the potential flood insurance implications of updated floodplain maps for the community. As an additional incentive for realtors to attend the program, the opportunity to obtain continuing education credits for realtor licensing purposes is offered. This educational opportunity for realtors in the Lincoln area is a unique way for the City of Lincoln to provide in-depth education about floodplain mapping to local real estate agents. It also provides another

112

avenue to reach the public with floodplain information. As part of the program, realtors are provided with a brochure that can be handed out to potential homebuyers and provides guidance for obtaining information about local flood hazards as well as flood insurance. The details of this educational effort will be presented to show some of the extra steps a community can take to provide additional outreach to local realtors and homebuyers. Providing this education can be an important part of any floodplain mapping update program and is another way of informing the public of the potential benefits and implications of updated flood maps as well as the associated flood insurance issues.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: JOHN P. CALLEN, E.I./CFM John Callen has worked for JEO Consulting Group, Inc. for the past year and serves as a project manager. Prior to joining JEO, Mr. Callen worked for three years in the field of floodplain management for the City of Lincoln Watershed Management Division. Mr. Callen earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Biological Systems Engineering from the University of Nebraska. Mr. Callen has several years of engineering experience in various fields of water resources including floodplain management, watershed master planning, and urban storm water capital improvement projects. Mr. Callen is an ASFPM Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM).

Recovery Mapping: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Diana B. Herrera, CFM, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region VI Abstract

As major flooding events continue to escalate, FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps take on a new perspective. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita along the Gulf Coast the Advisory Base Flood Elevations/Recovery Maps became a tool for communities to rebuild safer and stronger, if they wanted to. The ordinance adoption process of the recovery mapping became a controversial issue. This workshop will review the reasons for this type of mapping and the pros and cons for a community usage including the availability and usage of Increased Cost of Compliance. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Diana B. Herrera Diana is a mitigation and flood insurance specialist. Having spent 13 years as the Territory Manager for the NFIP Bureau and Statistical Agent, Diana had the responsibilities of training and marketing the NFIP in the five states that encompass Region VI, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, as well as the territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. She has conducted over 600 training sessions for insurance agents, lending institutions, community officials, federal regulators, appraisers, real estate agents and the public. When flooding disasters occur, she conducts public information meetings about the NFIP. She has thirty years working in the insurance industry including 25 years with the NFIP. She grew up in Louisiana and is very familiar with floods. In 2000, Diana became a nationally Certified Floodplain Manager.

113

D-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Tools for Automated Mapping Moderator: Jeff Tornatore, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Automated Floodplain Delineation

Leo R. Kreymborg, P.E., Project Manager, PBS & J David T. Williams, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, Natl Tech. Director of Water Resources, PBS&J Iwan H. Thomas, Engineer II, PBS&J Abstract

A set of tools was used for the automated development of hydrology and floodplain delineation of hundreds of miles of rural riverine floodplain for a major flood control agency. The process and tools resulted in unprecedented speed without sacrificing accuracy. The USGS regional regression equations were used to ascertain discharges. To develop the hydrology, 1arcsecond DEMs (also known as 30 meter DEMs) were downloaded from the USGS National Elevation Dataset, and combined with National Hydrography Dataset streamlines from the USGS, and the hydrologic unit code (HUC) polygons. Using these three inputs, a script was prepared that delineated the basins, and developed grids of regression discharges in a completely automated way, performing about a dozen major steps without user intervention. The primary output was set of grids of regression discharges which blanketed the agency's jurisdiction. Additionally, a custom application called Rapid Floodplain Delineation was developed to perform extremely fast delineation of floodplains. This application used the National Hydrography Dataset to locate streamlines, read the regression discharges previously developed, created and cut cross-sections for the streams, and calculated backwater models. It then output an extensive table of hydraulic results, and delineated each floodplain as a GeoTIFF image. The application furthermore created presentation quality cross-section plots and profile plots of each stream in pdf format. The application has unique features, such as the use of simple and standard formats for input and output (for example shapefiles and TIFF images), choices of several options to control the generation of cross-sections, the ability to delineate floodplains even when the cross-sections intersect, the ability to read n-values from GIS coverages, and the ability to automatically disallow regions off-channel from contributing to the hydraulic conveyance. All the calculations and outputs for each stream are generated in a single pass without user intervention. The application has been optimized for speed; for example all processing from cross-section generation to delineation are complete in 15 to 20 seconds for a 10-mile reach. Accuracy is not sacrificed; the results of the application have been checked against analogous HEC-RAS models, and water surface elevations are very close to HEC-RAS results. Project Manager, 2National Technical Director for Water Resources, and 3Engineer II, PBS&J, 9275 Sky Park Court, suite 200, San Diego, CA 92123 PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Leo R. Kreymborg Leo R. Kreymborg is a project manager / senior engineer with PBS&J specializing in hydraulics, hydrology, scour analysis, geographic information systems, and projects requiring computer programming or extensive data processing.

1

114

Leo's hydraulic and hydrologic experience includes flood insurance studies for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, risk-based analysis using HEC-FDA (Flood Damage Assessment), a dam break inundation analysis, and as sole instructor for 3-day HEC-RAS training. He has been primary engineer on numerous studies involving scour analysis, sediment transport modeling, and the effect of in-stream mines on channel stability. Leo has considerable computer programming and database experience. He is highly skilled in numerous programming languages including C, Python, and Visual Basic. Leo has created custom computer models such as PRINET, the pothole-river networked watershed model, for the Corps of Engineers. He also created the Rapid Floodplain Delineation model, a self-contained tool which performs very fast backwater modeling and GIS delineation of riverine streams.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC) STUDY ON FLOODPLAIN MAPPING TECHNOLOGIES

David Maune, Ph.D., CP, CFM, Senior Project Manager, Dewberry Scott Edelman, P.E., President, Watershed Concepts Abstract

The National Research Council (NRC) was tasked by the U.S. Congress to assess emerging floodplain mapping technologies and evaluate the degree to which such technologies should be used in FEMA's Map Modernization Program. A Committee of nationally recognized experts was formed to evaluate FEMA requirements for Map Modernization and to evaluate remote sensing technologies (vertical and oblique aerial photography, photogrammetry, lidar, and IFSAR). Technical presentations were made by representatives of all major Federal agencies involved with mapping technologies (e.g., FEMA, USGS, NOAA, USACE, NASA), state governments involved with FEMA's Map Modernization Program (e.g., North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program), and from representatives of private industry that offer technological solutions to diverse mapping requirements. After careful analyses of FEMA requirements and technological opportunities, the Committee reached consensus on the relative advantages and disadvantages of vertical and oblique airborne imagery, photogrammetry, lidar and IFSAR, and their benefits for hydrologic modeling of watersheds and hydraulic modeling of floodplains. This presentation will focus on the major conclusions and recommendations, as reported by David Maune and Scott Edelman, both of whom were members of the NRC Committee investigating floodplain mapping technologies. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David F. Maune Dr. David Maune is the senior project manager for Remote Sensing at Dewberry & Davis LLC. He is the editor of the 1st and 2nd editions of "Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: The DEM Users Manual" published by the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS). He is an ASPRS Fellow and Certified Photogrammetrist. He is the principal author of Appendix A, Guidance for Aerial Mapping and Surveying, to FEMA's "Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners." He specializes in independent quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of lidar datasets to

115

ensure conformance with Appendix A requirements. Prior to joining Dewberry in 1992, Dave was the Commander and Director, U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center (TEC) which developed many of the remote sensing technologies now commercially available worldwide.

The UK Flood Risk Management Research Consortium: New Technologies for Floodplain Inundation Mapping

Nigel Wright, Professor UNESCO-IHE, Foundation for Water Education Delft, the Netherlands

The risk to the public from flooding in the UK has risen up the media and political agenda following flooding in 1998 and 2000. This has led to more integrated co-ordination of planning and emergency response by national authorities. Additionally it was decided that more investment in infrastructure was required and that this in turn required more trained personnel and research into better ways of managing flood risk and making investment decisions. The research needs identified led to the establishment through peer-review of a consortium of universities, institutes and consultancies that were funded to conduct a broad program of integrated research. This was funded through £5.6 million (approx. $10 million) from the national research council and statutory bodies such as the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency for England and Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Rivers Agency for Northern Ireland. This paper will firstly present an overview of research in the consortium covering the following areas under active research: · Land Use Management · Real Time Flood Forecasting · Infrastructure Management · Towards Whole System Modelling · Urban Flood Management · Stakeholder and Policy · Geomorphology, Sediments and Habitat · Risk and Uncertainty Secondly the paper will focus on the use of computer simulation in predicting flood plain inundation and will report on the following work: · The use of remotely-sensed data to establish Digital Terrain Models for flood inundation models. · The use of remotely-sensed data to record flood inundation extents during extreme events in order to validate computer models. · The integration of models of various complexities to provide efficient, but accurate, solutions. · The development of inundation modeling on massively parallel computer systems in order to allow for the resolution of fine detail or multiple simulations for optimisation. These issues will be demonstrated for rural and urban test cases including critical areas in major UK cities. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Nigel Wright Nigel Wright joined UNESCO-IHE, Foundation for Water Education, as Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and River Basin Development in April 2006. Prior to this he spent over 12 years at the University of Nottingham in the UK. His research in the UK focused on the use of computer methods for

116

predicting flood inundation extent. Since 2004 he has been part of a nationally-funded consortium on Flood Risk Management. In 2001 he spent 6 months working at the University of Idaho in Boise, Idaho and worked on modeling support for a FEMA Project Impact study for the City of Boise. Since joining UNESCO-IHE in the Netherlands his research has become increasingly internationally focused.

Evaluation of the Applicability of Floodplain Re-delineation in Rural Arkansas Watersheds

Surya Ravulaparthy1, P.E., CFM, Water Resources Engineer, FTN Associates Ltd. Sarada Kalikivaya1, EI, CFM, Water Resources Engineer, FTN Associates, Inc. Abstract

Floodplain redelineation is a floodplain mapping technique used extensively in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map Modernization program in cases where no new riverine or coastal analyses are performed. "Volume 1: Flood Studies and Mapping" of the FEMA Map Modernization Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners provides several guidelines to determine the application of this technique. The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of the floodplain redelineation technique in rural Arkansas watersheds, taking the provided guidelines into consideration. The analysis of Nowlin Creek in Pulaski County, Arkansas, using typical FEMA Map Modernization procedures is presented as a case study. The analysis includes a comparison of floodplain redelineation with the results of a new detailed riverine analysis. The analysis indicates that floodplain redelineation carried out in accordance with the FEMA guidelines can, in some cases, produce significantly different results from those produced by a new riverine analysis. Based on this case study, several factors producing differences between floodplain redelineation and riverine analysis for rural Arkansas watersheds with relatively steep slopes are evaluated with a view toward improving decisions on the applicability of the redelineation technique. 1 Water Resources Engineer, FTN Associates Ltd., Little Rock, Arkansas, U.S.A., 72211

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Surya Ravulaparthy Mr. Surya Ravulaparthy was born and raised in Andhra Pradesh, India. He graduated with a Bachelor in Civil Engineering degree from Andhra University in August 2000. He obtained his Master of Science in Engineering degree from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette in May 2002. Mr. Ravulaparthy has been working with FTN Associated Ltd., a distinguished environmental consulting firm, since March 2002. Mr. Ravulaparthy has more than five years of experience with the floodplain modeling and mapping. He has been involved with the FEMA Map Modernization Program for the last four years. Mr. Ravulaparthy has been certified as an Engineer Intern in April 2003 and was qualified as a Certified Floodplain Manager in October 2006.

117

D-7 Floodplain Mapping: Getting the Most out of Flood Mapping Moderator: Elizabeth Krousel, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Maximizing New DFIRMs: Additional Uses of New Maps from Emergency Management to Public Outreach

William B. Meyer, CFM, Technical Director of Floodplain Management, AMEC Earth and Environmental John Crofts, CFM, Manager, Map Mod Management Support Program, Utah Dept of Public Safety Division of Emergency Service and Homeland Security Thomas Ward, P.E., CFM, Senior Engineer, Bowen Collins & Associates Abstract

As communities across the nation near completion of the Map Modernization initiative, and adopt new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for their community, many are asking "now what"? In addition to updating your community's ordinances, it is a great time to re-examine your Emergency Management Plan, public outreach strategies, CRS rating, risk to other flood frequencies, risk to dam breaches, risk to critical facilities, and more. This paper provides guidance on what new items are included in a DFIRM such as base maps, aerial photos, models for more frequent storm events; and how they can be used to further prepare your community against flooding. Examples include: Emergency Management: Which roads and critical facilities are under water for not only the 100-YR event, but the more frequent events and the "Big One"? We explain how communities can produce maps of the 10-YR event and as well can map known large storms to simulate damages. We discuss utilizing FEMA's HAZUS Program with these other map storms to estimate damages. Public Outreach: We explain how a community's old maps can be overlaid onto the new DFIRMs in order to focus public outreach efforts on changed areas. We discuss how some communities are utilizing their parcel maps together with their DFIRMs to further identify buildings and owners in harm's way. We discuss the NFIP's Community Rating System, and the credits available to community's that have open space and parks within their regulated floodplains. We demonstrate how easily a parcel and land use map can be overlaid upon new DFIRMs. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: William B. Meyer, CFM Will has over twelve years of experience in water resources, engineering, and project management, including tenures with Windward Engineering in Salt Lake City; Carter & Burgess and the Harris County Flood Control District in Houston; and Michael Baker Jr. Inc. and AMEC Earth & Environmental in Denver. Will has worked on a variety of projects, including wind turbine analysis; roadway and park drainage systems; urban stream restoration; detention basin analysis; flood control; watershed management and planning; stormwater utilities; and GIS-based floodplain mapping and flood insurance studies. Will currently serves Technical Director of Floodplain Management for AMEC Earth & Environmental's Federal Services Program. His key area of responsibility resides in FEMA's Map Modernization for the Western United States. Additional work includes watershed master plans, river restoration projects, stormwater utilities and hazard mitigation projects.

118

The Pro-Active Approach: Preparing for Your Community to Get the Highest Possible Benefit from the Map Modernization Program

Jim Meador, CFM, Senior Scientist, PBS&J Suzanne Vermeer, P.E., CFM,, Water Resources Eningeer, Baxter & Woodman, Inc. Abstract

FEMA has traditionally based much of its decision on where the limited funding allocated for updated flood mapping projects was spent based on the old concept of "the most bang for the buck." With the recent course adjustment in the Map Modernization Program, 92 percent of the nation's population will be receiving new digital FIRMs. DFIRMs are now done in a countywide format and all the jurisdictions within a county can have an impact on the final quality of the new DFIRM. By working together, local and county government agencies can also establish uniform floodplain management regulations that are applied and enforced consistently throughout the county. If this is accomplished before Map Mod comes to your jurisdiction, then the remapping process can be much more effective. Map Mod provides an opportunity for communities and counties to review their current records and status in the NFIP, update their local floodplain maps and regulations, and identify flooding locations that may require further investigation. We will discuss how communities can use current activities as leverage items in competing for Map Mod funding. Additionally, the importance of a community's maintenance of FEMA flood documents will be discussed as it pertains to the accuracy and efficiency of the map update process. Communities can also provide FEMA with more recent flood studies or topographic data to enhance their floodplain maps, resulting in more accurately defined flooding risks. This presentation will explain how counties and communities can prepare for the Map Mod process in order to maximize the benefit to their local jurisdictions. Maximizing the positive impacts of Map Mod can even allow flood insurance policy holders to qualify for reduced flood insurance rates, and local jurisdictions may qualify for flood hazard mitigation and pre-disaster mitigation funding. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Jim Meador, CFM Mr. Meador is currently a Senior Scientist and Associate Project Manager in PBS&J's Flood Hazard Management Division. He has over 11 years experience in Flood mapping projects and has participated Flood Map scoping meetings for over 50 counties. He is a Certified Floodplain Manager as well as a member of ASFPM and state organizations in Maryland, Ohio, and Minnesota. Mr. Meador received a B.A. in Geography from the University of Maryland Baltimore County in 1982, a Certificate in Secondary Education from West Chester University in 1994, and a Certificate in Geographic Information Systems from Penn State University in 2004. Mr. Meador has prepared and provided several trainings for FEMA contractors and state agencies in DFIRM production and processing of FEMA Flood Insurance Studies. Jim Meador, CFM PBS&J 12101 Indian Creek Court Beltsville, MD 20705 301.210.6800 [email protected]

119

Increasing Awareness in the Map Mod World

Lisa Jennings, CFM, Senior Specialist, FEMA Region VI Shari Brand, Emergency Management Specialist, FEMA Region VI Diane Calhoun, CFM, Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Abstract

In FY 2007, it is estimated that more than 4,000 communities will be required to adopt new maps as a result of Map Modernization. This is an unprecedented number representing more than twice the number of communities required to adopt in FY 2006. It is anticipated that in the years to come, this number will continue to grow. It is vitally important that communities are made aware of the changes affecting them at an early stage. Outreach and public awareness are the keys to communities and citizens understanding the map modernization process and how it will affect them. At Region VI, we have successfully implemented an outreach strategy that is coordinated between FEMA, IDIQ contractors, community floodplain managers, and Baker, Inc., throughout the five-state region. The current projection through the year 2010 places Region VI communities second in the nation for map adoptions. In this presentation we will describe the outreach strategy and activities implemented by FEMA Region VI and the RMC and outline some success stories. This will include the outreach efforts beginning with the pre-scoping meeting and continuing to final map adoption. Activities and materials utilized and distributed throughout this process include initial phone contacts, CD's, brochures, flyers, community fact sheets and guides, site visits, ordinance packets, etc. Some of these outreach products have been produced in Spanish. The Ordinance Compliance packet includes FEMA publications related to the map adoption process, as well as information on joining the NFIP for those communities that are non participating. We have utilized existing materials such as the Flood Smart toolkits and FEMA publications to enhance our outreach efforts. We will also outline our involvement and coordination with the Congressional affairs staff and how they are assisting in our outreach efforts. Our outreach focus is educating the public throughout the map modernization process and targeting the non participating communities by encouraging NFIP membership. In this way, citizens can make informed decisions regarding the safety of their families and property from the devastating damages of floods. We hope that this presentation will be beneficial to all states and regions when developing and implementing their outreach strategies. We would encourage discussion among attendees as we continue to look for new and innovative ways to educate the public through the map modernization process. A sample packet of the outreach materials used during the process will be available for discussion and distribution.

120

A new method for decision support in flood management, aimed at societal consensus building

Jos Dijkman, M.Sc., Flood Management Engineer, Delft Hydraulics Monique Villars, M.Sc., Delft Hydraulics

Abstract

Faced with prospect of higher river discharges in the future combined with the desire for river restoration, in 1998 the Netherlands Parliament adopted the policy of `providing room for the river'. In practical terms, for the Rhine River, this meant implementing measures to allow increased river discharges without heightening the levees. Not surprisingly, the societal discussion about which measures to implement, and where, included many stakeholders, often with quite strong views on how to realize this principle. Some 700 individual river improvement measures were brought forward by stakeholders to contribute to providing room for the river. These included the removal of hydraulic obstacles, excavation of floodplains, setting back of levees, construction of side channels, detention basins, etc. All the submitted ideas were analysed at a similar level of detail. Analysis showed that combined implementation of about 40 measures could be sufficient to solve the problem, but that many different combinations were possible. In 2006, the Netherlands Parliament decided which combination of measures to implement. The preparation for this decision involved the complex process of public consultations, with many actors and stakeholders. There was a distinct need for on-line support in this process, for estimating the effects of combinations of measures on the flood levels along the river. A simple and user-friendly system for this purpose, the so-called "Planning Kit" for Flood Management along the Rhine Branches, was developed for this purpose. The Planning Kit contains a database with the results of time-consuming detailed hydraulic models, allowing for a rapid, on-line presentation of effects of measures. The Planning Kit also contains additional information for each of the proposed measures, including a situation sketch, aerial photographs, cost estimates, ecological effects, amounts of material to be excavated for various soil types, etc. Thus, when composing a set of measures, the aspects relevant to the decision making can be provided right away. The paper discusses the Planning Kit, and illustrates how important it was in facilitating the public discussion - as well as that among professionals - in the planning, design and decision making phases for the Rhine River. It hopefully provides inspiration for other flood prone areas where the discussion about what measures to implement is hampered by the distance between engineers, stakeholders and politicians in the region affected. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Jos Dijkman Jos Dijkman is a flood management engineer with WL/Delft Hydraulics in Delft, the Netherlands. Mr. Dijkman has over 25 years of experience in water resources and flood management projects, both in the Netherlands and overseas. Many of these projects were in Indonesia; he also spent one year in Vietnam working on a comprehensive Mekong and Red River Delta Master Plan project. Mr. Dijkman served as a team leader for three missions to assess water resources and flood management on the Upper Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. He also serves as a member of the independent Dutch National Advisory Committee on Flood Management Issues, and is a member of the US NRC / NAE committee that reviews flood protection in New Orleans, following Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Dijkman received his M.Sc. degree in civil engineering from the University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. WL|Delft Hydraulics, P.O. Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands, tel. +(31) 15 285 8457 fax +(31) 15 285 8582; e-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

121

D-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Dam Break Modeling Moderator: Craig Kennedy, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Dam Breaking Modeling Using Unsteady HEC-RAS for Gwinett County's NRCS Reservoirs

Duncan Hastie, P.E., Project Manager, Dewberry Sam Fleming, P.E., Chief Engineer, Gwinnett County Water Resources Division Sam Crampton, E.I.T., Project Engineer, Dewberry Abstract

The potential flood risk caused by dam failure is often more severe and can behave very different to that of natural flooding events. The tragedy of dam failure is all too familiar to Georgia with the failure of the Kelly Barnes dam near Toccoa Georgia which resulted in 39 deaths in the early hours of November 6th 1977. Floodplain maps issued by FEMA only show the 1% and 0.2% chance annual floods and assume all dams and culverts function perfectly and therefore the risk of dam break is often forgotten. Recent developments in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) River Analysis System (RAS) has included the addition of unsteady 1-dimenstional hydraulic modeling and dam breach modeling. Gwinnett County's recent flood study program and spatial database developments has provided steady state HEC-RAS models and supporting spatial data that have provided the foundation for the creation of unsteady HEC-RAS models for dam break analysis. The conversion from a steady state flood study model to a dynamic dam break model required some careful modifications to account for differences in flood routing methodologies between the two model states. These unsteady models have been used to simulate both sunny day failures and storm in progress failures at all 15 of Gwinnett County's NRCS facilities. These models have enabled flood inundation maps to be created which include peak elevation, floodwave arrival time and floodwave time to the peak for both sunny day and storm in progress failures. This has identified homes and businesses at risk enabling emergency evacuation plans to be created.

122

Overview of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Methodologies Utilized in Dam Breach Inundation Analyses

Matthew Dudley, P.E., CFM, Senior Water Resources Manager, URS Corporation Abstract

The safety of a high hazard dam in the Mid-Atlantic region has recently come into question. In an effort to comply with state dam safety officials, a new hydrologic and hydraulic analysis complete with dam breach modeling was completed and supplied to the dam's owner/operator. The analysis and subsequent inundation mapping is meant to be used solely for evacuation planning purposes. This presentation serves as an overview of the techniques and methodologies used to complete the analysis. This project utilized a broad range of tools in order to achieve the desired result. The project included performing hydrologic analysis for a 367 square mile watershed. Utilizing GIS-Hydro, the watershed was subdivided into 32 subbasins. GIS-Hydro aided in development of a HEC-1 model. The SCS curve number method was utilized to calculate the runoff hydrographs upstream of the dam, from the dam, and all lateral inflows downstream of the dam. Additional effort was required to characterize the discharge characteristics of the gated spillway as no standard operating procedure exists for the dam. Available gage data was collected and analyzed using USGS PeakFQ software. Dam breach parameters were selected using suggested ranges from dam safety officials. As a high hazard dam, the design storm for the dam is the probable maximum flood (PMF). When analyzing the PMF in a dam study, the storm must be developed to produce the maximum amount of rainfall possible over the dam's watershed. Hydrometeorological Report 52 (HMR-52) was used in order to develop the PMF over the dam's watershed. HMR-52 was then used to apply that storm event over the entire watershed of interest. GIS data were collected from several counties and used with HEC Geo-RAS to develop a HEC-RAS model downstream of the dam. Structure information along the study reach was obtained using a combination of existing HEC-2 models, state highway plans, and field survey/investigation. The peak discharges resulting from the PMF with and without dam failure were routed downstream. State dam safety officials require mapping of dam breach inundation to a point where the incremental increase in peak water surface elevation between the PMF with and without a dam failure is less than two feet. This required routing the peak discharges downstream approximately 27 miles. HEC-GeoRAS was used to create rough floodplain boundaries for the PMF storm event with and without dam failure. The boundaries were then manually adjusted and extended as appropriate to create the inundation maps that will be used for planning purposes. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Matthew Dudley Mr. Dudley is a water resources engineer with nearly five years of experience working for URS Corporation. Mr. Dudley has extensive H&H modeling experience. A large portion of his work experience resides in FEMA's map modernization program, having personally modeled hundreds of miles of riverine detailed studies and thousands of miles of riverine limited detail and approximate studies. Mr. Dudley has also performed the necessary hydrologic analyses for FIS updates utilizing regional regression equations with appropriate adjustments for gage data and imperviousness. In addition to work in the map modernization program, much of his work has revolved around dam hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. In particular, Mr. Dudley is able to utilize a broad range of his skill sets in the area of dam breach analysis and inundation mapping.

123

Dam Break Flood Hazard Mapping Using FLO-2D

Donald J. Montgomery, P.E., Senior Engineer, MWH Americas, Inc. Jimmy S. O'Brien, Ph.D., P.E., President, FLO-2D Software, Inc. Carmen Bernedo, Senior Engineer, MWH Americas Abstract

MWH analyzed the potential impacts from a planned off-river domestic water supply reservoir embankment breach in a coastal area near a river and related floodplain. Two types of breach mechanisms, piping during fair weather and overtopping during inclement weather, were evaluated to generate dam breach hydrographs. A FLO-2D model simulation of the reservoir dam breach was performed. This two-dimensional flood routing simulation represented a significant improvement over the conventional one-dimensional DamBreak model "shotgun blast" analysis performed during earlier stages of the project. The simulated floodwave attenuation and flood distribution was governed primarily by the reservoir water volume interacting with the complex topography and spatially variable roughness. The model details included existing reservoir berm, road and railroad embankments, rainfall and infiltration, some buildings, freeway culverts, minor swales and canals, and sediment bulking. Simulations were performed for six different breach locations to evaluate potential inundation from a dam breach around the entire circumference of the reservoir. Dam breach simulations to the north actually flow back around the reservoir in the direction of the prevailing floodplain slope to the south as shown in the figure. A significant portion of the water from the north breach is predicted to eventually flow into the nearby river. This is a substantial departure from the one-dimensional model analysis which depicted a triangular area of inundation emanating from the breach location. FLO-2D is a volume conservation model and the area of inundation is primarily dependant on the volume in the dam breach hydrograph. Since the volume of water in the reservoir at the time of the breach is accurately known, the resulting predicted area of inundation is relatively accurate. The FLO-2D dam breach model provides information needed to establish an early warning system for dam failure and outline potential evacuation routes. The predicted area of inundation identifies those structures that may be impacted by the flood event and where people may be at risk in residential areas. Risk based hazard maps were prepared to outline the areas of potential loss of life and structure failure.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Donald Montgomery Mr. Montgomery is a Senior Civil Engineer with more than 7 years of service with MWH. He holds a B.Sc. degree and a M.E. degree in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University. His experience includes storm water and sediment management planning, and embankment dam design for water storage and mine tailing storage facilities. Mr. Montgomery has performed and supervised flood plain inundation modeling of dam breach scenarios for tailings storage and water storage facilities in the US, Europe, and South America.

124

Improved Methods of Rapid Inundation Modeling for Dam Break Analysis

Richard A. Crowder, Ph.D., Associate Director, Halcrow Group Ltd. Simon Kovacevic, Senior Modeller, Halcrow Group Ltd. Richard Harpin, Ph.D., Senior Vice President ­ Water Business Group, Halcrow, Inc. Roger Falconer, Ph.D., Halcrow Professor of Water Mngment, Cardiff Univeristy, UK Abstract

With the exception of nuclear power plants, no man-made structure has a greater potential to kill a large number of people than a dam (Joseph Ellam, Pennsylvania State Director of Dam Safety, 1987). The most catastrophic example of this is the world's worst dam disaster which occurred in Henan province in central China in August 1975 where as many as 230,000 people may have died. For dams around the world there is the need to provide an understanding of potential inundation resulting from dam break failure and the production of inundation maps showing the areas where residents may need to be warned and/or evacuated if there is any advance warning of the potential dam failure. This understanding is also need to indicate safe and unsafe access and egress routes for the emergency services. The application of two-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling has become an attractive technique for the assessment of the flood inundation and flood hazard as a consequence of dam failures. Such an approach enables the routing of the flood wave, and the resulting flood extent, flood depths, flood velocities and flow directions to be determined for each timestep, enabling the maximum levels and velocities, and the rate of spread of the floodwater to be determined. The application of the technique is still in its infancy and the software packages that are commonly used need to be applied with care because they were not originally developed to model rapid inundation over the complex topography (i.e. steep and urbanised) that is often encountered in the flood path of a dambreak flow. With reference to a case study on Cheshunt North reservoir in the UK, the application of the recently developed TVD (total variation diminishing) numerical scheme is benchmarked against alternative 2D software packages. The factors affecting the model results and the issues that need to be considered when undertaking such analyses are discussed, as are the suitability and applicability of specific modelling approaches. Suggestions for appropriate research and development to improve model performance are also outlined. The underlying math/science of TVD scheme is shown to overcome some of the numerical limitations of the software that has been benchmarked. It is also shown how the TVD scheme may lead to improved and more accurate representation of the 2D `shock' (rapid changes in water surface profile with associated transcritical and supercritical flow) that occurs in dam or embankment break situations.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Richard A. Crowder Richard Crowder is an Associate Director within the Halcrow Group, a 6000 strong international engineering and planning consultancy with 10 offices in the USA. He is Halcrow's Framework Manager for the Strategic Flood Risk Management Framework with the UK Environment Agency covering flood risk mapping and strategic flood risk planning. He is an expert in river and coastal hydraulics and water quality modeling, computational hydraulics (1D, 2D & 3D), software development and software benchmarking. He is experienced in watershed flood studies flood risk studies (PPG25), flood mapping and flood management studies flood forecasting and

125

flood warning, hydrological analysis, sedimentation, benchmarking of hydraulic modelling software, model auditing, water resource studies and software engineering. He has extensive experience in coastal modelling and impact assessment studies. Experienced in the application of GIS tools/software on watershed/river studies and the development of GIS applications, database applications, data processing and programming applications.

126

SESSION E WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 4:00 P.M. ­ 5:30 P.M.

E-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Nonstructural Applications and Opportunities Sponsored By: USACE Moderator: USACE Nonstructural Measures on Onion Creek in Fort Worth District

Randall Behm, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Onion Creek is a typical flood damage/flood risk reduction study being conducted by the Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the local sponsor. Nonstructural measures have been formulated to be a major part of the overall Onion Creek project. Mr. Behm will discuss the flood damage/flood risk problem, the nonstructural measures that were considered, the formulation of the nonstructural plan, other opportunities that are available as a result of implementing nonstructural measures, and the status of the study.

Nonstructural Measures in the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program [MsCIP]

Gene Barr, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers The MsCIP is a multimillion dollar study being conducted by the Corps of Engineers to investigate the feasibility of various measures to reduce the risk from hurricanes to coastal Mississippi. Both structural and nonstructural measures will be investigated. Mr. Barr will focus on the nonstructural measures aspect of the study. He will present the risk that coastal Mississippi is exposed to from hurricanes, what nonstructural measures are being looked at, the criteria used to determine the applicability of nonstructural measures, opportunities that are associated with nonstructural measures, etc

Nonstructural Measures in the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Project [LaCPR]

Larry Buss, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

The LaCPR is a multimillion dollar study being conducted by the Corps of Engineers to investigate the feasibiity of various measures to reduce the risk from hurricanes to South Louisiana. Both structural and nonstructural measures are being investigated. Mr. Buss will focus on the nonstructural measures aspect of the study. He will present the risk that South Louisiana is exposed to from hurricanes, what nonstructural measures are being looked at, the criteria used to determine the applicability of nonstructural measures, opportunities that are associated with nonstructural measures, etc

127

E-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Modeling Tropical Flooding Moderator: Gary Guhl, PBS&J Enhancing National Weather Service River Flood Forecasts with Graphical Flood Severity Inundation Mapping

Benjamin F. Pope, III, Water Resources Engineer, Watershed Concepts Douglas C. Marcy, Physical Scientist, NOAA NWS / Coastal Services Center Jodie Towers, Spatial Analyst, Perot Systems Government Services / NOAA Coastal Services Center Abstract

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) provides flood forecast information in a variety of formats, including graphical hydrographs and text products. The NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) and NWS have worked in partnership to develop geographic information systems (GIS) based graphical flood severity inundation products. The CSC contracted with Watershed Concepts in 2005 to develop a methodologies and standards document and map templates for the new graphical flood severity products using the Tar and Neuse River basins in North Carolina as a pilot project. This report, titled "Methods and Standards for National Weather Service Flood Severity Inundation Maps" serves as the basis and guide for creating new Flood Severity Inundation Maps at specific NWS river forecast points. In 2006 the CSC again contracted with Watershed Concepts to inventory existing topographic and engineering data available at 523 NWS river forecast sites in five Gulf Coast States (Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) so that existing flood studies and floodplain data could be leveraged in order to most efficiently produce Flood Severity Inundation Maps at selected NWS river forecast points. In addition to development of the topographic and engineering data inventory, Watershed Concepts has also been tasked by the CSC to develop Flood Severity Inundation Maps at 35 selected NWS river forecasts sites in the Gulf Cost region. Final selection of the 35 sites to be mapped will be determined using results of the topographic and engineering data inventory. The topographic and engineering data inventory is being developed through interviews with local community officials and data requests to the FEMA Regional Mapping Centers (RMCs). The inventory is being developed as a database and the data is being entered into the database through a GIS interface. Once entered, the inventory data can be viewed and queried spatially using the GIS interface. Inundation maps of the areal extent of NWS flood categories (minor, moderate, major), along with a range of water surface elevations at selected vertical intervals will be developed using the best available topographic and engineering data. The resulting NWS Graphical Flood Severity Inundation Maps will become a part of the suite of new products being distributed by the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) program. This paper will present the methodologies and standards used to develop NWS Graphical Flood Severity Inundation Maps. In addition, the development and results of the topographic and engineering data inventory will be presented, along with results to date of the development of the NWS Graphical Flood Severity Inundation Maps at selected sites in the Gulf Coast States.

128

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Benjamin F. Pope, III Mr. Pope has over 17 years of experience as a water resources engineer. For the last six years, Mr. Pope has had primary responsibility for hydrologic analyses for Watershed Concepts in the performance of floodplain mapping studies in North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, New Mexico, Virginia, and Kentucky. Prior to joining Watershed Concepts, Mr. Pope was a civil engineer and hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. While with the USGS, Mr. Pope authored & co-authored several Water Resources Investigations Reports, including reports on development of rural and urban regression equations for North Carolina.

Mapping the Hurricane Katrina Storm Surge Crest in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana

D. Phil Turnipseed, P.E. Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Office of Surface Water Dean Gesch, Research Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center K. Van Wilson, P.E., Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Abstract

The Hurricane Katrina storm surge crest is one of the largest tropical waves in recorded history to hit the North American continent. Hurricane Katrina made land fall on the northern Gulf of Mexico Coast early on August 29, first slamming into the Mississippi River delta near Buras, Louisiana, and then overwhelming the Pearl River delta at the Louisiana-Mississippi border. Riverine flooding from Katrinainduced rainfall was minimal in the region, but the storm surge devastated the Gulf of Mexico coastal region of Southeastern Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Hundreds of human lives were lost due to Katrina and it caused a total of over $80 billion in damages to the region. In the wake of Katrina's destruction, high-water marks representing Katrina's storm surge crest were flagged, surveyed, and documented by teams representing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and others. Crest elevations of about 29 feet were documented near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi confirming that Katrina was about 4 feet greater than Hurricane Camille (the previous largest known storm wave to hit the region). In the months that followed, the USGS developed an internet-based geographic information system (GIS) application that will allow a user to pinpoint depths of the Hurricane Katrina storm surge crest in the affected states. Pre-Katrina flown Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data were seamlessly conjugated to form a 3-m high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) that served as the base for the mapping. FEMA also contributed pre-Katrina LiDAR-based DEMs and inundation polygons. GIS coverages of over 1,500 High Water Marks (HWMs) for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama were produced. FEMA data were supplemented by available USGS, USACE tide gage and HWM data and Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force recovered HWMs to help in generating a storm surge crest GIS coverage for the affected coastal region. In addition, the USGS EROS Data Center obtained USACE Mobile District postKatrina LiDAR for further use in computing planform changes of barrier islands/coastlines in the region and developing methodologies to estimate debris volume caused by the storm. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: D. Phil Turnipseed Mr. Turnipseed earned a BS in forestry from Mississippi State University (1977), and an ME in civil engineering from Louisiana State University (1986). He is a registered professional engineer in the State of

129

Mississippi (1996). He spent over 2 years working for the Smithsonian Institute/Peace Corps in the Andes Mountains of Ecuador conducting exotic species trials. Since 1987, Mr. Turnipseed's has worked with the USGS and currently is employed at USGS headquarters in Reston, Virginia as the USGS liaison to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers program, the International Joint Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environment Canada Ministry; He works in support of maintaining quality assurance/quality control of a nationwide network of near real-time surface water streamgages. He is also the National Flood Frequency program coordinator. Mr. Turnipseed has authored/co-authored over 60 interpretive reports, conference proceedings, and posters in the field of surface water hydrology and hydraulics for publication by both USGS and scientific journals.

Numerical Experiments to Quantify Hurricane Storm Surge Attenuation by Coastal Marshes and Barrier Islands

John Atkinson, Ph.D., Water Resources Engineer, Ayres Assoicates Shintaro Bunya, Ph.D., Department of Civil Engineering, Univ of Notre Dame Joannes Westerink, Ph.D., Department of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Notre Dame Abstract

It has been postulated that the extent and heath of coastal marshes and barrier islands play an important role in providing protection against inland penetration of hurricane storm surge. Recent work has enhanced the widely used Adcirc shallow water model to include a spatially variable Manning-n friction parameter assigned by use of GIS-based land-use maps. Improved hurricane storm surge computations have been demonstrated via successful hindcasting of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. With this capability in place and validated, the influence of frictional resistance can be systematically evaluated. To this end, several realizations of the Louisiana coastal flood plain will be created by varying the manning-n value and distribution for several vegetation types within coastal marshes and on the barrier islands. Hurricane Katrina and Rita will be re-simulated with the modified land use specifications and additional hurricanes will be simulated by reducing the forward speed of Katrina and Rita. The ensemble of all of these simulations will be used to establish how sensitive storm surge attenuation is to changes in marsh and barrier island extent and health. An update and progress report of the work to date on this project will be presented. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Atkinson John Atkinson has 10 years experience in coastal ocean modeling. His expertise includes geophysical fluid dynamics, numerical solution techniques, and developing and implementing new algorithms. He has been a contributor to the ongoing development of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' ADCIRC model. Dr. Atkinson helped to create a storm surge model for the Louisiana Gulf coast including developing the numerical mesh and the representation of the levee network for New Orleans. The resulting model is now being extended to provide storm surge predictions for all of the U.S. Gulf Coast. In addition, Dr. Atkinson has been involved with simulations in a variety of water resources areas, including surface water flows in the Great Lakes, scour in coastal waterways, and flooding in the everglades.

130

E-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Flood Mitigation Planning (III)

Moderator: Roxanne K. Gray, Wisconsin Emergency Management

CRS and Local Mitigation Plans

Karen Helbrecht, Mitigation Planner, FEMA David Stroud, Flood Training Coordinator, Insurance Services Organization Shannon Burke, Mitigation Planner, FEMA Abstract

Learn about the relationship between DMA and CRS local mitigation plans and how to meet both DMA and CRS program requirements with one mitigation plan. The panel will discuss the similarities and differences between DMA and CRS local mitigation plan requirements to enable communities to receive increased credit for CRS and become eligible for FEMA grant programs.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Karen Helbrecht Karen Helbrecht has worked for FEMA since 1988, and has been involved in mitigation planning for many years. She was the primary author of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Interim Final Rule, and has worked on many of the policy issues regarding the development, review and approval of mitigation plans. Ms. Helbrecht previously assisted in the development and implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, and has worked on several disaster recovery operations.

Local Mitigation Planning: Integrating Mitigation Plans into Ongoing Community Planning

Kathy Wissmann, Mitigation Planner, FEMA Abstract

Disasters from flooding events generally awaken communities' interest and understanding of the impacts that hazards have on community economies, development, land use, infrastructure, populations and cultural resources. Federal, State and local emergency managers and planners are actively promoting hazard mitigation planning as an approach to reducing risks from these hazards, particularly since 2000 when the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000) introduced planning as an integral requirement for Federal postdisaster programs. Following adoption of a local mitigation plan, local communities are then eligible for project funds that will help mitigate structures at risk, and protect lives and property. Panelists from FEMA will discuss "best practices" in comprehensive planning that highlight local and regional efforts to integrate hazards in the decision-making process and achieve positive change as a result.

131

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Kathy Wissmann Kathy Wissmann has been a Program Specialist for FEMA since 2001, and is a certified planner under the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) with experience in mitigation planning at the Federal, State and local levels. She assisted with the development of FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Planning Interim Final Rule and its early implementation. She also assisted with the development and delivery of FEMA mitigation grant programs, including the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), and the new Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) and Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) programs. Prior to joining FEMA, Ms. Wissmann worked in the Midwest as a local community planner for city government and as a private consultant for local community planning issues, and also worked for the State of North Carolina Division of Emergency Management on postHurricane Floyd mitigation planning initiatives.

Local Mitigation Planning: Opportunities, Challenges and Plan Updates

Karen Helbrecht, Mitigation Planner, FEMA Shannon Burke, Mitigation Planner, FEMA Kathy Wissmann, Mitigation Planner, FEMA Abstract

As FEMA passes the four-year anniversary of the publication of the Mitigation Planning rule (February 26, 2002), local communities are beginning to address required plan updates to their plans. FEMA representatives will describe some of the steps that are being taken by States and local communities to improve their plans, and to incorporate new information. FEMA staff will introduce and discuss Federal programs, funds, and tools that allow States and local communities invest in their planning initiatives. FEMA will also discuss the efforts to coordinate the planning requirements between the mitigation programs.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Karen Helbrecht Karen Helbrecht has worked for FEMA since 1988, and has been involved in mitigation planning for many years. She was the primary author of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Interim Final Rule, and has worked on many of the policy issues regarding the development, review and approval of mitigation plans. Ms. Helbrecht previously assisted in the development and implementation of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, and has worked on several disaster recovery operations.

132

E-5 National Flood Insurance Issues: Providing Assistance to Communities

Moderator: William Nechamen, CFM, NY Dept. Environ. Conserv.

Real Time Floodplain Management ­ The Interactive Open House

A Case Study of Bowling Green ­ Warren County, Kentucky FIRM Map Modernization Public Outreach Charles J. "Jack" Wright, PE, Warren County Office of Stormwater Management Steve Hunter, AICP, City-County Planning Commission of Warren County Jeff T. Lashlee, PE, City of Bowling Green Melissa Armendt, P.E., FMSM Engineers, Inc. Abstract

Map Modernization offered a unique opportunity for the community of Bowling Green and Warren County, Kentucky, to engage the public for input on the revision of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The City ­ County Planning Commission joined the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a Cooperative Technical Partner (CTP) to maximize the local input and involvement into the development of the maps. Years of working with outdated and often incorrect maps had led to the degradation of the value of the maps as a land use planning tool. The Planning Commission sought to change the perception of the maps and revalidate the need for quality floodplain management in the community. The Planning Commission chose to supplement the funding provided by FEMA by seeking out existing flood studies previously done by the development community in areas of development not reflected on the FIRM. At minimal cost, numerous studies were incorporated in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and local developers provided additional field work and research to correct known anomalies. Tangible benefits included community ownership in a document that was historically thought of as needless governmental bureaucracy. Local ownership did not stop with flood study assistance. The success of the program came from the involvement of the community in the public outreach and education. Starting with special interest articles in the local newspaper, the Daily News, the public was introduced to the Map Mod process and the importance of floodplain management. As the release of preliminary maps approached, additional news stories in this newspaper and on WBKO-TV, the local ABC affiliate, announced open house dates. This exposure focused on the development of the Digital FIRM (DFIRM) product and its advantages. The format of the open house was the cornerstone of the success. Dubbed as an interactive open house, the location was set up as an "exhibit hall" complete with "vendors" providing services in the realm of floodplain management. Surveyors, engineers, the Kentucky Department of Insurance, local mortgage lenders, and the local realtor's association were available to provide real time answers to those most commonly asked questions when someone finds themselves in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) zone. FEMA Region IV and the Kentucky Division of Water also had representatives on hand to answer regulatory questions and to validate the importance of the process. The main attraction of the open house was two interactive computer stations. Each station included not only the effective FIRMs and preliminary DFIRMs in hard copy, but both were available digitally as GIS layers and projected onto screens for easy viewing. Citizens could view the existing and proposed SFHA

133

for their property. Using high-resolution aerial photography and contour base maps, the property owner could not only see their buildings, but could understand how it related to the SFHA. Citizens were encouraged to comment on the maps in multiple ways. Questionnaire forms were available. For those individuals that could not or chose not to write their comments, audio tape and video cameras were set up to capture both the words and emotions of the comments. Bowling Green and Warren County measured success by the lack of protests and appeals filed during the 90 day review period. Only six protests were filed, all of which were easily addressed before the preliminary maps were released for the 90-day period, and none of which involved a change in Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Warren County maps are scheduled to become effective May 2, 2007.

Pursuing Automatic Adoption of Flood Ordinances: a Case Study in Maine

Sarah Widing, EIT, Civil Engineer, ENSR Corporation Thomas Marcotte, CFM, Senior Planner, Maine Office of State Planning Matthew Kennedy, P.E., CFM, ENSR Corporation Abstract

The ultimate goal of the Flood Map Modernization Program is the adoption of the improved flood maps by every community in the United States. The underlying flood study data will be stored in digital format and will be available for presentation in digital format. The availability of digital data will make it possible to quickly and effectively update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as new and more detailed studies are completed. Given that production of the FIRMs will no longer be a resource-intensive task, FIRMs may be updated at a greater frequency. Rather than place an undue burden on the communities of the United States to go through the entire flood map approval process each time a FIRM is improved, several states are pursuing the option to tweak their flood insurance laws to provide for automatic adoption of the most current FIRM. Each community within each state can have unique language in their flood plain ordinance that may make providing for automatic adoption difficult. This paper describes the factors involved in revising community flood ordinances in the State of Maine including: Coordination with the State Office of Flood Plain Management Coordination with the community flood plain managers Coordination with the community administrators Example texts of flood ordinances revised to provide for automatic adoption The new step-by-step timeline of the adoption process from flood study completion to adoption.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Sarah Widing Ms. Widing has 2 years experience with water resources engineering.

134

"Getting Rid of Community Assistant Jitters"

Linda Delamare, CFM, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region VI Dale Hoff, CFM, Natural Hazards Program Specialist, FEMA Region VI Abstract

In 1968 the National Flood Insurance Program was created. This legislation allowed communities to enter a mutual agreement with the federal government. The agreement would allow the sale of flood insurance to the community's citizens. In order to join the NFIP, the community would adopt and enforce its floodplain management ordinance to reduce flood loss and protect public safety. In an effort to ensure that communities participating in the NFIP are achieving the flood loss reduction objectives of the program. FEMA provides training and assistance through Community Assistance Visits (CAV). The CAV's help resolves floodplain management issues before they develop into problems requiring enforcement actions. Community Assistance Visits provide a means to identify communities which have real or potential problems in administering and enforcing their floodplain management programs When NFIP communities are contacted by FEMA or the State to arrange a community Assistance Visit, community officials get the jitters. They feel anxious and worry about the outcome of the community assistance visit. They feel they are not prepared for the visit and don't know what to expect. They wonder how they can prepare for the Community Assistance visit. During this presentation we will discuss the CAV process from beginning to end. Demonstrate the importance of good record keeping. What should be permitted and the significance of the Elevation Certificate. The 6 months time frame for LOMR's and when a CLOMR should be provided to FEMA for review. This presentation will prepare the Local Floodplain Administer for a successful Community Assistance Visit. They will learn what FEMA and the State are looking for during a CAV. This training will relive them of the jitters. Their newly found awareness of what a CAV involves will boast their confidence. This will reduce their fears of being CAV'ed. With their newly found knowledge they will return to their communities more confident and eagerly prepare for their next CAV. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Linda Delamare Natural Hazards Program Specialist Mitigation Division - Community Mitigation Programs Branch FEMA June 99 to Present Natural Hazards Program Specialist Conducts Community Assistance Visits to communities for the purpose reviewing compliance. Educates a diverse audience, on the many aspects of the NFIP through conducting workshops. Explains to communities their obligation to floodplain management and hazard mitigation measures. Schedules Community Coordination Meetings to explain the results of FIS studies and new maps. Partner with the State in support of NFIP goals and objectives. Corps of Engineers September 76- June 99 Civil Engineering Division for 23 years During those years she worked in Floodplain management, Dam Safety and Real Estate. · In Floodplain she handled technical requests for flood hazard evaluation/flooplain information involving compliance with the NFIP. She also assisted in collecting field information used in

135

hydrologic calculation analysis that she used to produce drawings of flood profiles, FIRMs, and FHBMs for FIS studies. · In Dam Safety, she participated in team Dam Safety Inspections and writing Pre and Final Inspection Reports. She evaluated and implemented changes to ongoing Flood Operations and Procedures Manuals titled "Flood Emergency Plan" for the Corps of Engineers 26 Lakes. These reports were distributed to federal, state and local entities to be used during potential flooding. She used Micro-Station, and Auto-CADD to produce construction plans of Slope Stability, Channel Improvements, and Drainage Systems in mitigation efforts, and Construction Drawings for Dam Plans, Profiles, and Cross Sections for many projects. While working in Real Estate she prepared exhibits, plates and drawings of land acquisition and easements for flooding used at town hall meetings and court hearings. She used Deed Descriptions to layout land bearings onto topographic maps. These maps were used to determine the, acquisition, and easements for Lake Ray Roberts prior to it being constructed.

·

136

E-7 Map Mod Town Hall Meeting Sponsored By: FEMA Moderator: Doug Bellamo, FEMA Risk Reduction Branch FEMA's Floodplain Boundary Standard

Rick Sacbibit, Program Specialist, FEMA Headquarters Turgay Dabak, Process Lead, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Abstract

One goal of Flood Map Modernization (Map Mod) is to provide reliable and defendable flood hazard maps. To achieve this goal, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued Procedure Memorandum No. 38 to provide guidance for the implementation of the Floodplain Boundary Standard, which was originally introduced in Section 7 of FEMA's November 2004 Multi-Year Flood Hazard Implementation Plan (MHIP). ." In general, most standards for a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) project are established when the scope of work is set. Examples of this include specifying the source(s) of terrain data, where the field survey will be performed, and the hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analysis for the study reach. Different study reaches within the study area may use different procedures to correspond to the appropriate risk class. The only true checks that can be performed after the study is submitted are to verify that the procedures described in the scope of work were followed properly and that the actual end product of the flood boundary matches the best available terrain data. Procedure Memorandum 38 laid out FEMA's plan for moving forward with implementing the Floodplain Boundary Standard along with a set of criteria and procedures that are intended to facilitate consistent application and measurement of the compliance with the Floodplain Boundary Standard. Our presentation will focus on explaining PM 38 and the FBS Audit process, the challenges PM38

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Rick Sacbibit Rick Sacbibit is an engineer with FEMA HQ Risk Analysis Branch

Levees and Map Mod: A Status Update

Kelly Bronowicz, FEMA Risk Analysis Branch, Washington, DC Craig Kennedy, Mapping on Demand Team, Alexandria, VA Abstract

Early in the implementation of Flood Map Modernization (Map Mod), FEMA recognized that accurately assessing and portraying the flood protection capabilities of levees is critical to the general safety and welfare of the public and the Nation. As part of Map Mod, FEMA initiated numerous activities--in

137

cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other Federal agency partners, State agency partners, FEMA contractors, and communities--to gain an accurate understanding of the flood risks faced by citizens living and working behind levees nationwide. During this session, FEMA will provide a high-level overview and status report on NFIP and Map Mod procedural requirements, the status of levee evaluations and mapping being undertaken nationwide, and ongoing coordination, outreach, and inventory activities.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Kelly Bronowicz Kelly Bronowicz is with the FEMA Risk Analysis Branch. She is a Program Specialist.

New, Validated, or Updated Engineering (NVUE)

Rick Sacbibit, Program Specialist, FEMA Headquarters Steve Jencen, Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Abstract

As part of FEMA's Mid-Course Adjustment, a goal for "New, Validated, or Updated Engineering" (NVUE) was introduced. Since that time, FEMA has developed NVUE guidance. The three components (new, validated, updated) will be discussed; in particular, validation, which is generally defined as determining if the level of flood hazard risk identification on a community's FIRM is adequate based on its supporting engineering analysis for a flooding source as defined FEMA and community input. This presentation will focus on explaining NVUE and FEMA's vision for how NVUE should be considered within the study process, including how and when it is determined for an individual study.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Rick Sacbibit Rick Sacbibit is an engineer with FEMA HQ Risk Analysis Branch.

138

E-8a Hydrology & Hydraulic/River Restoration: Streambank Erosion Protection Moderator: David Fowler, CFM Isthmus Protection of Lake Kittamaqundi, Columbia, Maryland.

Pieter Dahmen, P.E., Senior Engineer, Professional Associate, HDR Engineering, Inc. Abstract

Lake Kittamaqundi located in Columbia Maryland, is an excavated lake built within the floodplain and adjacent to the Little Patuxent River. The lake serves as a scenic and recreational asset of the town center area of Columbia. It is basically an excavated basin fed by runoff from Wilde Creek and from flood water of the Little Patuxent River. A narrow strip of land or an isthmus separates Lake Kittamaqundi from the Little Patuxent River. The river has a drainage area of approximately 28 square miles at the location of Lake Kittamaqundi. The lake is located within the western floodplain of the river. Across the lake, the eastern floodplain ranges in width from 500 to 900 feet. The upstream area of the river receives runoff from suburban areas with some stormwater management controls. Just upstream of the lake the river has been straightened in the past with some of the spoil material placed along the side. Whenever a flood event occurs, the river overtops the bank with floodwaters entering Lake Kittamaqundi. The floodwaters spilling into the lake has created erosion at some locations resulting in overflow channels that are endangering the isthmus. The Little Patuxent River has a large sediment load and flood water entering the rivers have created sediment deposits within the lake. At two major overflow locations a delta has formed in the lake. If the erosion is allowed to continue, the possibility exists that the lake would become part of the river system and that additional sediment inflows into the lake would occur. The lake is scheduled to be dredged to remove the sediment deposits which are a costly project. Since the Isthmus is part of the recreational area including a hiking trail surrounding the lake, the lake owner, Columbia Associates has requested that a design is prepared to protect the isthmus from erosion and prevent permanent inflow channels forming from the river into the lake. A hydrologic analysis was performed of flood records of a downstream gage using a recent major storm event. Instantaneous flood measurement collected on a 15-minute basis was obtained from the USGS. The flow values were adjusted to reflect a smaller drainage area based on a function of the ratio of the drainage of the river at the site to the drainage area at the gage. The instantaneous stream records reflected flash flood condition with rapidly increasing flow. An unsteady flow model was used using the prorated instantaneous flow values to determine flow velocities at the inflow channel locations and to determine appropriate erosion control measures. To provide a control for the isthmus, a wider hiking trail was designed along the length of the narrow isthmus with turf reinforced matting capable to withstand high flow conditions. Erosion control measures considered included gabions, placed large diameter riprap and geo-synthetic turf reinforced matting. To protect the river bank from eroding, imbricated riprap placed within the channel banks was proposed. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Pieter Dahmen Pieter Dahmen was named a Professional Associate of HDR Engineering, Inc., which is an award to recognize technical and professional expertise in the field of hydrology and hydraulic. He currently works at HDR's Norfolk Virginia office. He obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Master of Science Degree from Texas A&M University. As a hydraulic engineer working with HDR , he has performed river mechanics analysis, bridge hydraulics,

139

scour analysis, stormwater management, and drainage design. As a national resource for HDR, he has worked on project sites from the east coast to the Mojave Desert of California, including the states of Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia. He was involved in the alluvial sedimentation study of irrigation canals in Pakistan as part of a USAID project. For new roadway crossing projects for the Virginia Department of Transportation, he has performed floodplain analysis to determine the effect of the bridge crossing including the recently constructed Route 288 Bridge across the James River.

Antelope Park Stream Stabilization and Restoration

Thomas Riley, P.E.1, The Flatwater Group, Inc. Nicole Fleck-Tooze, AICP, CFM2, Special Projects Administrator, City of Lincoln Dean Eisenhauer, PhD, P.E3, Biological Systems Eng., Univ of Nebraska - Lincoln Abstract

The City of Lincoln, Nebraska is proactively addressing stream degradation and stability problems. A project was developed to control stream degradation and water quality problems for a 5,600 foot reach of an ephemeral stream coursing through Antelope Park, an urban linear park. Over many years, the subject stream has been impacted by increased flows caused by urbanization, channel straightening, and deferred maintenance. Bank failure, which threatened the integrity of an adjacent parkway road, and neighborhood concerns, prompted a cooperative effort between the City and the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District (NRD). The project site included a tributary to Antelope Creek, which runs through a heavily used urban park, and regional trail system all located in an established residential neighborhood. The problem areas for this urban drainage conveyance included active stream bank erosion, streambed down-cutting, threatened infrastructure, and poor water quality. The primary goals for this project were to stabilize the stream; protect, maintain and improve existing infrastructure and park amenities; ensure no-increase in flood elevations; improve water quality in the reach of stream; and restore (to the extent possible) stream length. In order to provide a clear picture of the existing conditions of the stream segment, the design team completed a comprehensive, detailed survey including longitudinal profile descriptions, channel banks and cross-sections, thalweg determinations, hydraulic and hydrologic baselines, appropriate topography, inlet/outlet elevations, trees, utilities, and hydraulic structures. This provided data for the essential geomorphic, hydrologic, and hydraulic calculations and 3D surface generation. The team also performed a lowest minimum opening survey and a fluvial geomorphologic assessment of the existing stream conditions. The stream was characterized by two primary reaches and was divided nearly in half by a major thoroughfare. The upper reach was generally stable but suffered erosion near stormwater outlets and pedestrian crossings. The channel had also become overgrown with undesirable vegetation both in the stream and on the adjacent floodplain. The lower reach suffered severe channel bank erosion and incision. Bank erosion threatened an adjacent roadway and had incised and widened creating an increase in stream turbidity of 10 times from upstream to downstream. Where the stream coursed through the park, mowing was performed to the top of the banks, exasperating the erosion problem. Using survey data, historical aerial photographs, and watershed modeling, a restoration plan was developed to correct on-going problems, meet a proposed construction budget, and get public buy-in to potential park modifications. The overall design approach required consideration of the sensitive nature of the urban park setting. The team successfully engaged the neighborhood and general public through presentations complete with illustrative drawings, 3D representations of project features, project "walk-abouts" and open access to the design team. By limiting the amount of intrusive components traditionally incorporated into "hard

140

structure" oriented projects, a "less-is-more" design concept was employed by concentrating on bioengineering and riparian improvement techniques and strategic location of hard structures. The design development of each intervention was prepared in a manner that will allow the City to manage the stream and surrounding areas more safely and effectively. The primary feature of the restoration was the introduction of a two-stage channel on the downstream reach. The two stages allowed for the lengthening of the primary meandering channel by nearly 35 percent. The primary channel was designed to carry channel forming flows and to naturally meander while maintaining a stable slope. The capacity of the meandering channel corresponds to approximately a two-year return period flow. The channel has a sinuosity of about 1.5. The second stage serves as the new floodplain and as a steamway for the meandering channel. Excavation of this second stage offered several advantages. The first being a stable channel that protected adjacent infrastructure and improved overall water quality. A second indirect benefit is the improved floodplain capacity and attenuating effect of the restored stream corridor. The ability to provide this benefit in an urbanized park setting was a project bonus. A final benefit was a new planting scheme that will result in improved park aesthetics and reduced maintenance by using low maintenance and durable native prairie grass species and wild flowers. The City and NRD are also preparing permanent interpretive signage explaining the project and its multiple benefits. Initial public response has been outstanding and additional urban restoration projects are in the works. 1Senior Project Engineer, The Flatwater Group, Inc. 2Special Projects Administrator, Watershed Management, City of Lincoln, Nebraska 3Professor of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: THOMAS E. RILEY, P.E. Mr. Riley is a licensed professional engineer and a managing partner of The Flatwater Group, Inc., a successful Midwest water resources environmental consulting firm. With 20 years of experience, Mr. Riley is trained as a Civil Engineer and focuses on water resources and environmental engineering projects. He is skilled in hydraulic and hydrologic modeling, fluvial geomorphology, GIS applications, restoration design, project cost-estimating, and project management. Mr. Riley has an extensive and successful track record in facilitating large groups with multiple objectives in both the public and private forum, including the coordination of specialty experts, federal and state regulators and resource agencies. He has recently concentrated on solutions for stream degradation in southeast Nebraska. His focus has been on lower order ephemeral and perennial streams developing long term interventions. In particular, he has focused on practical stream and lake restoration using his experience, hydrologic/hydraulic modeling, and GIS applications to minimize the anthropogenic effects on hydrologic/geomorphic processes and their effects on aquatic habitat. Mr. Riley has also served as an ad hoc hydrology instructor at the University of Nebraska.

141

Erosion Setback Analysis and Geomorphic Assessment of Martinez Wash, Yavapai County, Arizona

Kofi Awumah, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, Prestige Engineering Consultants, LLC Udaya Prakash, P.E., Prestige Engineering Consultants, LLC Abstract

Martinez Wash is a tributary of the Hassayampa River that flows south of the proposed Wickenburg Ranch Development property location into the Gila River. Martinez Wash has a total drainage area of 108 square miles while the project site itself is only 3.4 square miles. At the project location, Martinez Wash covers a drainage area of about 105 square miles. The proposed land use will be a low density, residential mixed-use community consisting of single-family residences of various densities, some commercial land use, and public facility sites. There will also be some recreational type land use including golf course, two neighborhood parks, an equestrian center, a recreation center/clubhouse site, a ranch camp, and a series of street side and off-road pedestrian and equestrian trails. Prestige Engineering Consultants was tasked to conduct erosion analyses of the washes within the property to support the development of the proposed Wickenburg Ranch. The task included field inspection, soils data sampling, sediment transport modeling, erosion set back analysis and bank protection design where necessary. Three approaches were utilized to determine the erosion setback distances for the washes at the critical locations where development is planned for the Wickenburg Ranch: First approach was the Level 1 method of Arizona State Standards SS5-96 (by the Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR) to obtain an initial erosion setback. The resulting setback lines were evaluated for reasonableness, and where the method was found to be inappropriate, more advanced methods were employed. The second approach was the Level 2 method of Arizona State Standards SS5-96 (ADWR). This level of analysis was used to determine the stability of the channels. The methods in this section of the SS5-96 document were supplemented by other empirical methods. Finally, the third level of analysis (Level 3 of the SS5-96) was employed. This is the hydraulic and sediment transport modeling approach to determine bed material movement through the washes. The three methods were used to supplement each other to prepare the erosion setback lines for the proposed development. In addition, a geomorphic analysis was conducted to identify historical behavior of the washes through collection and review of historical aerial photographs and the application of geomorphic relationships. The primary objective was to evaluate lateral channel migration, historical bank lines as well as low flow channel locations and sediment aggradation/degradation potential. A stream pattern prediction chart was used to define channel planform.

142

E-8b Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Managing Complex Watersheds Moderator: Will Thomas, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. The DFIRM/DCS as part of a Comprehensive Water Resources Framework: The Flood Study Geodatabase and NHD in NYS DEC

Richardo Lopez-Torrijos, NYS Floodplain Mapping Program Coord., IAGT/NYS DEC Jeff Simley Abstract

USGS's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is designed as a spatial index for all surface water related data. FEMA's Flood Insurance Studies, producing the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM), is an example of a numerical modeling process, occurring in a GIS environment and producing a wealth of information about the studied water bodies. By translating the DFIRM data format into the Flood Study Geodatabase (FSG, Walker and Maidment, 2006) it is possible to relate a FIS. By adopting such linked spatial data base model for the DFIRM product, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is establishing communication between the creation and maintenance processes for each program and their related datasets. Efficiencies gained by the publication of the resulting information in the common data model will show the leveraging of each program for the other's benefit, and shows FSG as a component of a framework that holds all surface waters related information. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Richardo Lopez-Torrijos For the last 14 years working on the Development and Coordination of NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Water Resources IT infrastructure, including - Geospatial enabled tools for Floodplain Mapping, TMDL, etc. - Data layers: NHD, elevation models, water quality data, etc - Partnership programs with USGS, EPA, FEMA, NASA, NRCS and local/regional partners MSc in Physics from Madrid University, an MSc in Earth Science from the University at Albany,

143

Use of an Unsteady Flow Model Created for FEMA to Asses Stormwater Conveyance Improvements

Jake San Antonio, EIT, CFM, Engineer, ENSR Corporation Matt Kennedy, P.E., CFM, Program Manager, ENSR Corporation Margaret White, Project Management Consultant, Town of Winchester Abstract

The Town of Winchester, Massachusetts has experienced significant flooding and flood damages (in excess of $16 million) emanating from the Aberjona River. The town commissioned a study of the flooding in 1999 that resulted in the recommendation of a series of conveyance improvements. Following completion of the original study, Winchester began the process of permitting the projects. During the permitting process several downstream communities raised concerns that the proposed flood conveyance improvements just pass flood problems downstream to them. Previous hydraulic studies only looked at the flood impacts within Winchester and did not explicitly consider downstream impacts. Simultaneous with the Winchester project, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began a flood re-study of the Mystic River Basin. For the re-study an unsteady flow HEC-RAS model was developed, which includes all the major tributaries in the basin including the Aberjona River. The town of Winchester was able to leverage this model to more fully analyze its flood control project including the impacts and benefits to downstream community. Using this model and a more holistic view of the watershed, the town Towns was able to consider additional options and modify its proposed suite of improvements to mitigate flood problems without impacting downstream communities. This paper will present a case study of how a hydrologic/hydraulic model developed for a FEMA flood insurance study was used to assist in the design and analysis of a community flood mitigation project. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Jake San Antonio Mr. San Antonio is an associate engineer with 5 years experience in multiple aspects of storm water hydrology and water resources engineering. Mr. San Antonio's experience includes hydraulic design and modeling, stormwater and surface water management, water quality modeling and analysis, and flood control and drainage design.

144

Modeling Complex Flood Control Projects: A Hungarian Experience

Pal Hegedus P.E., D.WRE, Senior Associate, RBF Consulting Sacramento Sandor Kovacs, PhD., Middle Tisza-Valley District Water Authority, Szolnok, Hungary Abstract

Following the April 2000 flood on the Tisza River, the Ministry of Water Resources of Hungary authorized the Middle Tisza-valley District Water Authority to investigate available computer models and make recommendations regarding model selection. Following extensive review and testing, HEC-RAS was the recommended program. The Tisza River is the second largest river in Hungary (the Danube is the largest) with a long history of flooding. It is approximately 590 mi long providing drainage for 61,000 square miles of drainage area located within four countries. The maximum flow is above 140,000 cfs. Extensive calibration was conducted as part of the development of the current model. Detailed measurements and records were available for calibration since the late 1800-s. Detailed review included the 1895, 1932, 1970, 1979, 1999 and 2000 flood events. Calibration involved both the horizontal and vertical variation of Manning's roughness coefficient. The presentation will provide a summary of the results of the modeling and calibration efforts and description of the recommended structural and non-structural flood control improvements. The presentation will also review the performance of the model for forecasting during the 2006 spring flood event that produced the flood of record for the river.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Pal A. Hegedus Pal A. Hegedus, PE, D.WRE, has over 30 years of experience with water resources projects throughout the United States and is a registered civil engineer in six states. Recently named as a Diplomate of Water Resources Engineering by the American Academy of Water Resources Engineers (AAWRE) in recognition of his ongoing accomplishments and contributions to the profession, he is a Senior Associate and Manager of Stormwater Design for RBF Consulting in Sacramento. Throughout his career, he has been involved in the management, evaluation and design of local and regional flood control, drainage, storm water quality, water supply, sanitary sewer and hydroelectric projects. He is serving as a director of the Floodplain Management Association. He has published several articles and presented papers on flood control issues in both the United States and Hungary, and is an Honorary Associate Professor at the Technical University of Budapest, Hungary.

145

SESSION F THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 10:30 A.M. ­ 12:OO NOON

F-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): No Adverse Impacts ­ Urban

Moderator: John McShane, Environmental Protection Agency

Making Space for Water ­ The European Journey

Richard Harpin, Ph.D., CEng, MICE, MIWEN, Senior Vice President, Halcrow, Inc. David Murphy, Policy Manager, Flood Strategy and Risk, Environ. Agency Helen Samuels, Associate Director, Halcrow Group Ltd. Abstract

In Europe in the period 1998­2002: · floods comprised 43% of all disaster events · there were 100 major floods, with 700 fatalities, 500,000 people displaced and 25 billion insured economic losses The European Union currently has 25 member states, with a further five in negotiation or with candidate status. In 2008 a new directive comes into force setting out how member states should manage flood risk. This new directive promotes a move away from `flood defense' towards the sustainable management of flood risk by: · Applying a consistent approach to assessing risk, and mapping it where it is significant · Developing and implementing risk-based, sustainable management plans on a river basin basis An existing challenge for Europe is compliance with the Water Framework Directive, which came into force in 2004. This challenges member states to manage all aspects of water within a catchment in an integrated way; in relation to water quality, resources and flood risk management, and to consider not only the impacts on both the built and natural environment, but ways to provide enhancement to these environments in the form of multiple benefits. The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine was formed in 1950, and is now consider a world leader in delivering integrated river basin management. The Rhine catchment is home to 50 million people, and borders France, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands and Luxembourg. The Flood Directive is an extension of the remit of the Water Framework Directive. Specific challenges for complying with the Flood Directive in Europe include: · · · · · · · Almost 80% of European rivers flow across borders; there are 7 international river basin commissions Even within country, most member states do not have national consistency in approach to flood risk management, nor nationally based institutional structures The European Union's coastline extends 101,000km across 20 states, 15% of which is eroding In 50 years, the population living in coastal municipalities has more than doubled to 70 million people In certain parts of Eastern Europe, such as Latvia and Slovenia, there is not even robust base mapping available to support an understanding of flood risk The average population density across Europe is 111 per sq km, compared to 31 for the USA and 249 for the UK There are certain historical and political sensitivities within Europe that may challenge the sharing of best practice and cross boarder working. Language will also have an impact.

The impact of climate change over the next 100 years could increase river and coastal flood risk by a factor of 20. It is therefore critical to take a long term view to ensure that robust decisions are made which will make

146

sense in the long term ­ to ensure economic and environmentally sustainable solutions for the built and natural environment. In order to be transparent in decision making in the face of such uncertainty, it is key to understand the range of scenarios which we may face in the future, and to assess the long term impact of our policy decisions within each scenario envelope. The UK Environment Agency is unusual within Europe in its status as a single body responsible for leading flood risk management across the whole of England and Wales. However, whilst they lead for fluvial flooding, both urban and coastal flood risk management is the responsibility of the 356 local authorities and 184 internal drainage boards, who work in consultation with the Agency. Since 2004, however, the Agency has adopted a risk-based and sustainable approach to managing flood risk through the development of catchment flood management plans. These provide a river basin wide framework for drawing together key policy makers such as the local authorities and land-use planners to decide how best to manage flood risk to a 100 year horizon. The CFMP programme has drawn on new computational tools to allow robust, multi-criteria analysis of policies against a backdrop of future climate uncertainty. Policies are deliberately broad, and are based on whether to maintain, sustain, increase or reduce flood risk in a given flood risk zone within a catchment. How to deliver the policies then cascades down to strategy plans which consider a range of structural and non-structural options, which include investments (or withdrawal of investment) in maintenance, flood warning, flood proofing and land-use changes, as well as the more traditional measures such as investment in new flood alleviation schemes. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Dr Richard Harpin Richard Harpin is the Water and Utilities Business Group Manager for North America. He is project director for a growing portfolio of on-call contracts and projects in the region. Richard was formerly a Director of Halcrow Water business group with Project Director responsibility for about 50 UK and international projects in water resources planning, flood management studies and hydraulics. He was previously Halcrow's chief engineer with company-wide technical responsibility for water resources and hydraulic modeling. Dr Harpin has wide experience in water management and planning projects including project management, flood management studies, water resources planning, flood forecasting, low flow studies, irrigation, water supply, hydrometry, hydrological databases, modeling of rivers, pipe networks, watersheds and water resource systems, and software engineering and marketing. Examples of projects include the Mekong River Basin Water Utilisation Project; Belize City Drainage Infrastructure Project; development of guidelines for producing Catchment Flood Management Plans for the whole of England and Wales; a review of water resource system yields for all 28 water companies in England and Wales; development of a regional water resources strategy for the seven water companies in SE England; the River Thames studies including flood models of the whole of the Thames from Lechlade to Southend and a combined probability analysis of fluvial/surge tide events; and, a large study of the Thames Valley Stored Water System to investigate constraints and control of the system feeding the 4 water treatment works supplying 70% of the population of London via the London Water Ring Main.

147

Recycling Urban Flood Protection Infrastructure: A Case Study

Randy Stambaugh1, P.E., CFM, Metro Louisville Floodplain Manager R. L. Mullins Jr.2, Ph.D., P.E., AICP, PMP, Director, The Flood Protection Center LLC Abstract

Many of America's cities are struggling with ways of balancing economic development, urban revitalization, and sound floodplain management practices. This paper presents an evaluation of the efforts of a public-private partnership in Louisville, Kentucky, that's effectively balancing these three sometimes conflicting priorities. Louisville, as the nation's 16th largest city, is raising its profile through an aggressive, multifaceted riverfront restoration program. The University of Louisville's nationally-prominent basketball team was looking for a new home in the metropolitan area. After an inclusive site selection process, the task force settled on a downtown site that's right on the river. The area is highly developed at present and more development is anticipated in adjoining blocks because of the desirable riverside location. Just east of the site is the Louisville Waterfront Park. It has opened up a significant amount of formerly-developed floodplain. Building on Louisville's Olmsted parks legacy, it is adding another jewel in the emerald necklace of the City of Parks initiative. West of the site is the new Muhammad Ali Museum and the proposed Museum Plaza Complex. The new Cardinal Arena will be yet another anchor point in the revitalization of downtown since it will support, not only the basketball program, but contribute to broader economic development objectives in the tourist and convention realms. One challenge with the site is that it's partly in the floodplain. The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District is part of a public-private partnership to integrate the Arena development flood protection into the current floodwall system by recycling existing protection to the maximum extent possible while minimizing the intrusiveness of the plan on the floodplain and aesthetics of the area. In addition, planning is underway to consider ways to expand protection, as needed to the other developments west of the Arena site consistent with sound floodplain management practices. This approach of recycling existing infrastructure as part of the overall comprehensive planning process should render an environmentally-friendly and economical approach while preserving floodplain values.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Randy Stambaugh Randy received a BS in Civil Engineering from The University of Arizona in 1979. He has a PE in California and Kentucky also a PLS in Kentucky. He is a CFM and The Floodplain Manager for Louisville and Jefferson County Kentucky. Randy has worked for MSD for 10 years and managed the Development Team and Floodplain Management Section for six years.

1

Metro Louisville Floodplain Manager, Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, Louisville, KY 2 Director, The Flood Protection Center, LLC, Louisville, KY

148

Gung-Ho! A Call for Wetland and Floodplain Managers To Pull Together

Edward A. Thomas, Esq., Homeland Security Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Rodney Emmer, Ph.D., Executive Director, Louisiana Floodplain Managers Assoc. Jeanne Christie, Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers Abstract

In the United States, the folks who are concerned with reducing the misery caused by floods on the human environment do not usually have a close relationship to those who protect our nation's wetlands and its water quality. But, more and more we are finding that activities designed to protect humans from flood disasters also can help protect wetlands and contribute to the work being done to protect and restore water quality. Increasingly we realize that "today's floodplain is not tomorrow's floodplain." Wetland loss, loss of natural valley storage, and loss of permeable surface area, will often have a serious and predictable deleterious effect on future flood conditions. Newly developed computer simulations, known as future conditions hydrology, can calculate future flood heights, should development to take place in accordance with local zoning rules presently in effect. Some recent studies have used new updated topography, state-of ­the art computer simulations and future conditions hydrology and hydraulic modeling techniques. These studies have shown that even were a community to comply with the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program as required by the existing FIRM Study, future flood heights in streams and rivers would increase, over previous calculations, in some cases, by nearly six feet over previous calculations as wetlands and floodplains are filled and otherwise developed; and better engineering techniques are used to calculate future flood heights. The water managers of this nation need to work together better than we have in the past. Let us, all of us-wetland, floodplain, and stormwater managers as well as other members of the water quality community-reach out and offer help, support, and technical advice to each other. We all deal with the same substance and have similar paths to the same goal of serving and protecting the public. Gung-Ho! Is a phrase of Chinese origin. As Translated or mistranslated by United States Forces in World War Two it was said to mean: "everyone pull together"; or "everyone work in harmony." PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Edward A. Thomas Edward A. Thomas is employed by the Michael Baker Engineering Corporation, working on the development of partnerships to better map Natural and man-made hazards in the United States. Ed retired from the Department of Homeland Security-Federal Emergency Management Agency after nearly thirty-five years of Public Service. During his time in government, he worked primarily in Disaster Mitigation, Preparedness and Response. Ed managed the National Flood Insurance Program in New England for seventeen years. During that time he was recognized for managing the development of numerous landmark improvements to floodplain management which are in use to this day. He also was involved in the construction and management of housing developments for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ed worked on about two hundred disasters and emergencies, serving as the President's on scene representative, the Federal Coordinating Officer, dozens of times.

149

Ed is an Attorney, a frequent lecturer on Emergency Management issues, especially the Constitutional and Legal Aspects of Floodplain Regulations. He has also authored numerous publications and articles on various Disaster related issues. In 2006 Ed was received the Nation's highest award for Floodplain Management: The Goddard-White Award from the Association of State Floodplain Managers. He lives with his wife in the floodplain of beautiful Marina Bay in Quincy, Massachusetts.

150

F-2 New Perspectives In Hurricanes and Recovery: Hurricane Recovery Planning (II) Moderator: Thomas J. Schweitzer, PBS&J Flood Mitigation & Floodplain Management, Challenges and Opportunities in Developing Countries

P. G. Sousa-Costa, DMS Foundation International

Louisiana's Hazard Mitigation Planning Pilot Grant Program

Stuart Wallace, AICP, Hazard Mitigation Planner, James Witt Associates Abstract

The Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) is working with local communities on more than $10,000,000 worth of hazard mitigation planning and project development work under the Planning Pilot Grant Program (PPGP). This program was initiated early in 2006 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) specifically for states affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. Originally termed the "Expanded Mitigation Strategies Planning Grant Pilot" by FEMA, Louisiana has accepted applications from more than 50 parishes (Louisiana's term for county level governments) and communities to undertake this important planning program. The intent of the PPGP is two-fold, to provide resources for communities to: 3. 4. Undertake updates of existing hazard mitigation plans to reflect new data resulting from the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the State of Louisiana; and Evaluate specific mitigation actions to identify and document cost effective, environmentally sound and technically feasible projects for future HMGP funding.

The second goal is the focus of this presentation. The program was initiated by FEMA in recognition of the need expressed by states like Louisiana to "bridge the gap between strategies and implementation of actual mitigation projects as part of the overall disaster recovery effort"3. Mitigation plans often end with general recommendations; this pilot program is intended to help communities take an important next step toward project implementation. The program is also seen as a way to dramatically reduce the lag time between disaster events and the flow of funds to mitigation projects. With a backlog of hazard mitigation projects identified that have already been "scoped", the period between disaster and mitigation project application approval may be shortened from as much as 2 years to as little as 6 months. It is anticipated that as many as 200 new projects will be scoped as part of this program in Louisiana. The activities that are included in scoping a project are similar to steps needed to complete an HMGP application; feasibility analysis, preliminary design and engineering, cost estimation, consideration of environmental and cultural resources and benefit-cost analysis. GOHSEP has provided technical assistance at all stages of the work to ensure successful results. To maximize the results of the Pilot Program,

3

Section 1.1, Expanded Mitigation Strategies Planning Grant Pilot Guidance, FEMA, 2006.

151

GOHSEP has also worked to focus communities' efforts on methods to screen projects to find the most promising for long-term, comprehensive mitigation. The presentation will focus on 5. Background of the program; 6. Types of projects being analyzed as part of the PPGP; 7. Techniques used to screen and scope projects; 8. End products to be realized as a result of the PPGP; and 9. Problems encountered for future reference as other states attempt similar programs.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Stuart Wallace Stuart Wallace is a certified planner with a master's degree in civil engineering. During more than 20 years of professional practice, Mr. Wallace has gained diverse experience as a public agency staff member; university faculty member; business manager and owner; and private consultant. Since 1999, Mr. Wallace has worked as a consultant supporting natural and manmade hazard mitigation planning programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and helping dozens of state and local agencies and private institutions create and implement hazard mitigation plans. Currently, Mr. Wallace is working with James Lee Witt Associates providing support for the Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness in the development and administration of their Hazard Mitigation Planning Pilot Grant Program.

Lessons Learned from Long-Term Community Recovery Plan Development after Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi

Jae G. Park, Ph.D., Senior Project Manager, PBS & J Abstract

According to the National Response Plan, Emergency Support Function (ESF)-14 Long-Term Community Recovery and Mitigation is responsible for coordinating the resources of federal departments and agencies to support the long-term recovery of States and communities, and to reduce or eliminate risk from future incidents. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a lead agency supported by six other primary agencies. ESF-14 efforts should be driven by State and local priorities, focusing on permanent restoration of infrastructure, housing, and the local economy. When activated, ESF-14 provides the coordination mechanisms for the Federal government to assess the social and economic consequences in the impacted area and coordinate Federal efforts to address long-term community recovery issues. It will develop a market-based comprehensive long-term community recovery plan for the affected community through working with State, local, NGOs and private-sector organizations. Once the long term recovery plan is completed, ESF-14 identifies appropriate Federal programs and agencies to support implementation of the plan, ensure coordination, avoid duplication of assistance and identify gaps in resources available. However, when the ESF-14 was activated immediately after Hurricane Katrina in the gulf coastal states, FEMA struggled to lead the activities identified in the National Response Plan due to not only the catastrophic impacts and complexity of the recovery activities created by the hurricane but also lack of

152

leadership and skill sets needed to lead the team. Without the knowledge of local and state's socioeconomic, financial, political and administrative capacities, some early planning efforts were meaningless. Also early planning efforts were far ahead of communities' recovery activities. Many communities were not ready to work on developing the long term community recovery plan even after six months after the hurricane. In this presentation, author will discuss the issues and challenges observed in the long term recovery plan development process and make suggestions to improve future recovery planning after a major disaster. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Jae G. Park, Ph.D. Jae Park joined the National Risk and Emergency Management Division of PBS&J as a Senior Project Manager in December 2003. He is responsible for leading PBS&J projects in the areas of emergency management research, hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. Major works include disaster recovery planning, risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, developing hazard mitigation plans, grant application and management system, and performing mitigation policy effectiveness analysis. Since the Hurricane Katrina, he has served as a Chief Policy Analyst for Mississippi Governor's Office of Recovery and Renewal. This involves all aspects of policy formulation and inter-organizational coordination in developing long-term community recovery plans, housing reconstruction, economic development, public facility reconstruction, infrastructure, temporary housing, social service and hazard mitigation. Previously Dr. Park served as a Hazard Mitigation director in the State of North Carolina emergency management agency. He was involved with eleven presidentially declared disasters including Hurricane Floyd. He worked with FEMA in setting national recovery policy for Hurricane Floyd and acquiring 5,000 flood damaged homes in North Carolina. He initiated Safer Development forum along with North Carolina Smart Growth Alliance to establish mitigation ethics in the state. Prior to joining North Carolina Division of emergency Management, he worked as a Research Associate at the Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, Texas A&M University. At the research center, he was involved with conducting a socio-economic impact assessment of low-level nuclear waste disposal site, statistical analysis of a computer model for validating warning, evacuation and protective measures associated with Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP), and a minority risk perception study in Texas. He holds a Ph.D. degree in Urban and Regional Science from Texas A&M University focused on environmental planning and disaster management.

153

F-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Tools for Flood Mitigation Moderator: Maggie Mathis, CFM, Dewberry Enhancements to and Practical Applications of the National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool

Adrienne Sheldon, Senior Environmental Engineer, URS Corporation Errol Garren, Program Specialist, FEMA-DHS Jennifer Sparenberg, Planner, URS Corporation Abstract

The NT was developed for gathering information related to risk, building construction, and costs in order to help guide decision making about what mitigation measures (such as elevation, acquisition, or localized flood control projects) are appropriate to these properties. After being utilized in the field for a year, refinements in the overall functions of the NT have been implemented. Refinements to the NT involve: making data entry faster and more user friendly; including a basic benefitcost analysis program; incorporating the GIS visual application developed for the NT, and the inclusion of a means of tracking whether or not FEMA has offered the RL property owner a means of mitigation. Data entry is now faster due to a new format available for entering data: in table format similar to a spreadsheet. By using this new feature, the user can enter data for multiple properties. Inclusion of a basic benefit-cost program allows for quick analysis of the viability of the mitigation method selected for any given RL property. The GIS visual application developed for the National Tool allows the user to import, view, and manipulate RL data graphically, using GIS layers to create new point shape files based on the RL database. The refined NT includes a function for users to track whether an RL property owner has been offered a means to mitigate their property, whether or not they accepted the offer, and the type of mitigation offered. Due to recent legislation involving mitigation offers for repetitive losses and their effect on flood insurance premiums, it is important to track this information. These improvements to the NT are meant to enhance the overall function and application of the NT: gathering information on RL properties in the field; correcting errors in RL data from specific communities/regions, and selecting appropriate mitigation measures for a dataset of RL properties. Recently, Region IV used the NT to analyze and correct errors in the National Repetitive Loss Property Database for a list of prioritized communities. Data verification was performed in support of the comprehensive nationwide plan to mitigate all repetitive loss properties that represent an unacceptable burden on the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF) by September 30, 2007. Ultimately, the results of the analysis/data correction effort will be used to help local officials develop and submit grant applications that address NFIF repetitive loss structures for the FMA, HMGP or PDM. After the hurricanes of 2005 including Katrina, Rita and Wilma, FEMA Regions IV and VI used the NT to inventory repetitive loss properties to record which structures had been destroyed and which could still benefit from mitigation.

154

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Adrienne Sheldon Adrienne Sheldon has been a Certified Floodplain Manager for 6 years and is also a Professional Engineer. She works with the Homeland Security and Emergency Management Group at URS Corporation. She has 8 years of experience working in natural hazards mitigation planning and engineering and is active with her state chapter, the Maryland Association of Floodplain and Stormwater Managers (MAFSM). Ms. Sheldon helped FEMA to develop the National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool (NT) and is currently assisting FEMA to make refinements to the tool and to validate properties believed to be Severe Repetitive Losses through analysis of claims and property value data.

Predicting Structural Flooding in Harris County, Texas

An Inundation Analysis Through GIS

Brett Sachtleben, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation Gary Bezemek, P.E., Project Manager, Harris County Flood Control District Brian Tao, P.E., Project Manager, TTL Corp Abstract

An inventory of existing structural flooding is an integral component of flood plain management. Quantifying the number of structures and frequency at which structures flood within a stream reach allows drainage improvements to be properly targeted to high flood risk areas and identifies structures that may need flood insurance. In the past, an accurate estimate of structural flooding was developed from extensive field survey and use of programs such as HEC-FDA. However, with the advent of GIS and the availability of LiDAR data, a quicker and simpler method to quantify existing structural flooding is available to engineers. The Harris County Flood Control District tasked Dannenbaum Engineering with developing a method to efficiently identify existing structural flooding and to apply this method to the County's 1,300 miles of studied streams. The product was the Harris County Structural Inventory and Inundation Analysis that identifies existing structural flooding using structural inventory shapefiles and a GIS utility. The process minimizes manual development of data through automation and use of GIS. Required inputs include aerial photos, appraisal district parcel maps, GIS topographic data and geo-referenced HEC-RAS models. There are two main components of the project: Development of structural inventory shapefiles and the Inundation Analysis Utility. Structural inventory shapefiles were created through semi-automated methods for each studied stream of Harris County. These shapefiles include a point for each structure within the 0.2% event flood plain. Each structure was related to a HEC-RAS stream station of the nearest studied stream and was assigned a slab elevation, which was assumed to be 0.5 feet above each structure's natural ground elevation. Additional information about each structure, such as land value, structure value, etc., was automatically extracted from HCAD (Harris County Appraisal District) parcel shapefiles. The Inundation Analysis Utility, which is a GIS Add-in, was used with structural inventory shapefiles to identify the flooding events that could potentially inundate structures. The Utility, developed by TTL Corp, has the ability to include backwater effects, utilize a damage curve and summarize damage results by stream reach. The Utility determines which storm events flood each structure and approximates the one-

155

time damage induced on each structure by the storm events. The Inundation Analysis Utility presents the distribution and intensity of structural flooding in a tabular and a GIS shapefile format. The methodology is much less time consuming than the traditional method, as evidenced by the ability of Dannenbaum to develop structural inventory shapefiles for all of Harris County. The county covers approximately 1800 square miles and has over 1.1 million parcels. Despite the large size of Harris County, the effort to develop of all of the structural inventory shapefiles will only take approximately 6 months. With this methodology, accuracy of is not sacrificed at the expense of efficiency. Preliminary comparisons have shown that assumed slab elevations for the structural inventory shapefiles are on average within 0.5 feet of surveyed elevations.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Brett Sachtleben Brett Sachtleben received his Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering in 1995 from Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas and a Certified Floodplain Manager. Mr. Sachtleben joined Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation in 1997 and currently serves as a project manager in the company's Hydrology and Hydraulics Department. He has over 12 years of experience in civil engineering, with particular emphasis in drainage and flood control (evaluation/analysis, modeling and design). His experience has encompassed a variety of projects including, watershed studies and analysis, and storm facility planning and design. He has also been involved in storm sewer and drainage system planning for roadways and bridges, residential and commercial land development, municipal infrastructure projects, and airport facilities.

Sound Permit Processing is a Key to Flood Hazard Code Compliance

Donald Gauthier, CFM, Senior Engineer, Unincorporated King County Abstract

This presentation will discuss the modifications in the permit processing that King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) made to document compliance with the Flood Hazard code provisions. The changes include creating a permit activity that is related to all facets of the review including during the review of the building permit for site and building code issues and compliance during construction. This permit activity is called a FLODMISC and it has the ability to be a stand alone permit or be related to other permit activities. Currently it is used for site review prior to submittal of a building permit, which includes location of the property in relation to the mapped Floodplain. It is also related to a submitted Building permit for review of site issues including Zero-rise in flood heights by the proposed development, conveyance and compensatory storage. Once the building permit issued the FLODMISC activity documents the compliance review of FEMA Elevation Certificate and the building. The FLODMISC activity can also be related to major permits such as road and bridge construction and their compliance with Flood Hazard codes including FEMA Letters of Map Changes and Map Revisions.

156

I think that sharing this process with other jurisdictions will allow them to benefit from our experience and possibly allow them to create a similar or better process to insure and document that proposed development in Flood Hazard areas comply with the health and safety code provisions of that jurisdiction. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Donald S. Gauthier, Jr. Senior Engineer, CFM Building Services Division King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98057-5212 Telephone # (206) 296-7181 FAX (206) 296-7225 E-mail: [email protected] Employed in the Civil Engineering/Construction Industry since June 1969 when I was recruited by the Washington State Department of Transportation while attending Engineering classes at the University of Washington. Since June 1987, I have been employed by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (formerly Building and Land Development) reviewing development proposals for site issues, including Storm Water Runoff and Flood Hazard Code requirements. I became a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) in May, 1999, at the ASFPM Conference in Portland, Oregon, where the first CFM exam was offered. Attended multiple classes in Floodplain management since 1995, at Local, State and National levels. I am a member of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and the Northwest Regional Floodplain Managers Association (NORFMA).

157

F-4 Going Coastal: State of the Art Coastal Modeling for FEMA Program Sponsored By: Dewberry Moderator: Zekrollah Momeni, PE, CFM, Dewberry State of the Art Coastal Flood Hazard Analyses for Puerto Rico

Jeffrey Gangai, CFM, Coastal Engineer, Dewberry Paul Weberg, DHS ­ FEMA Region II Brian Batten, Ph.D., CFM, Dewberry Elena Dre-Horgan, Ph.D., CFM, Dewberry Abstract

INTRODUCTION Recent storm damages from hurricanes have demonstrated the need to revise the coastal flood hazard information shown on Federal Emergency management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). After hurricane George (1998), storm surge was estimated near 10 ft in Puerto Rico, showing that the flood hazards depicted on the FIRMs under-predict the hazards. Repetitive flood-loss claims showed that building to the elevations on the old FIRMs was not enough to remove structures from the flood hazard. In order to implement the FEMA "Map Modernization Project" through the incorporation of recent advances in coastal storm surge and wave height modeling technologies, a new study was commissioned to update the digital FIRM for Puerto Rico. METHODOLOGY A complete update of the coastal modeling was carried out, starting with a new storm surge study. ADvance CIRCulation Model (ADCIRC) was used to model storms and develop storm surge values around the island. A grid for the Caribbean area previously developed by USACE was used and merged with a detailed grid closer to the shoreline based on NOAA bathymetry and SHOALS hydrographic LiDAR. Figure 1 shows the refined grid around the Puerto Rico created by using the Surface Water Modeling System (SMS). The final grid has the shoreline spaced at approximately 120 m getting finer, about 70 m, in embayments and shallow areas. Topographic LiDAR data was used to extend the grid inland. Wind and pressure fields were obtained from twenty-four selected storms and used as input for ADCIRC. The storms were then simulated with ADCIRC to produce surge levels for each storm. The Empirical Simulation Technique (EST), also developed by the USACE, was used to determine the stillwater frequency curves for the 10% (10-year), 5% (50-year), and 1% (100-year) annual chance stillwater elevations. Updated stillwater elevations were utilized in the Coastal Hazard Analysis Modeling Program (CHAMP) to develop wave height and wave runup analyses. Erosion of thin sand layers overlaying rocky ledges has been applied, as well as wave set-up, which was not included in the previous study shown on the current FIRMs. Special consideration was given to the determination of wave setup around the island where a variety of profiles, such as steep cliffs, sheltered bays, and nearshore coral reefs alternate. Wave setup for linear slopes was calculated using the Direct Integration Method (DIM). Wave setup on reefs was determined using the methodology outlined by Gourlay (1996). The new FEMA coastal guidelines ­ calling for use of a 2% runup value, as opposed to a mean values, were used to determine wave runup. In particular, special attention was given to wave runup for shoreline behind reefs and near-vertical slopes. The results of these analyses were used to map new coastal flood hazards around the island using automated tools in a GIS environment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

158

This paper describes the coastal modeling methodologies and discusses the results of new flood hazard mapping for Puerto Rico. New surge modeling, introduction of wave setup, updated guidelines on the determination of wave dissipation inland and wave runup allowed the production of new flood insurance maps whose coastal hazards agree with historic high-water marks values. REFERENCES Gourlay, M. R. (1996), Wave Set-Up on Coral Reefs. 2. Set-Up on Reefs with Various Profiles. Coastal Engineering, Vol. 28, 17-55. Luettich, R. A., Westerink, J. J. and Scheffner, N. W. (1192), ADCIRC: an advanced three-dimensional circulation model for shelves, coasts and estuaries, Report 1: Theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DDI and ADCIRC-3DL, Technical Report DRP-92-6, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Jeffrey Gangai Jeff is a national expert in coastal flood hazard analyses with more than 9 years of experience. His area of specialty includes coastal processes and marine structures. He has experience with studies involving navigation projects as well as experience with numerical modeling of estuaries and rivers. Before joining Dewberry he worked for 5 years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Galveston, Texas. His experience includes flood insurance studies, coastal hazard analysis and mapping, wave studies, ship simulating studies, storm surge studies, 2D numerical models, coordinating physical models, surge gage management, budget preparation, cost estimating, breakwater design, jetty design, dredging quantities and shoaling rates, placement area capacity, oil rig jacket and superstructure design, and beach nourishment design.

159

Hawaii Hurricane Restudy

Ray Lenaburg, Senior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region IX Federal Insurance & Mitigatoin Siamak Esfandiary, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, Project Manager, Dewberry Jeff Gangai,CFM, Senior Coastal Engineer, Dewberry Abstract

The predominant hazard in the southern shores of the Hawaiian Islands is hurricane. The effective maps do not represent this hazard; they are based on a tsunami analysis that was performed in 1978. The major components of this study are the LiDAR data collection, process and review and the hurricane study of six Hawaiian islands, namely Hawaii, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai and Oahu. Modeling and mapping activities, ranging from the placement of transects to the delineation of flood hazard boundaries, will be performed using coastal tools developed as part of the Dewberry DFIRM production platform (GeoFIRM). These tools work within the Federal Emergency Management Agency's DFIRM specifications and interact directly with Microsoft Access tables generated by Coastal Hazard Analysis and Modeling Program (CHAMP). They also populate DFIRM database as the data is generated. Authors: Raymond T. Lenaburg, Senior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region IX, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division; 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200; Oakland, CA 94607-4052; [email protected]; 510.627.7181 Siamak Esfandiary, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, Project Manager, Dewberry, 8401 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031; [email protected]; 703.849.0313 Jeff Gangai, Senior Coastal Engineer, Dewberry; 8401 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, VA 22031; [email protected]; 703.849.2251 PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Ray Lenaburg Ray Lenaburg is Senior Engineer of the Community Mitigation Program Branch with the Mitigation Division of the Department of Homeland Security-FEMA Region IX in Oakland, CA. He has supervised more than 600 Flood Insurance Studies in Arizona, California, Nevada, Hawaii, and the other Pacific Trust Territories. Prior to joining the NFIP in 1976, he worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

160

Updating the Pamlico Sound (North Carolina) SLOSH Basin with High Resolution LiDAR Data

John Dorman, Program Director, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Kevin Slover, Coastal / GIS Specialist, Dewberry Brock Long, Hurricane Program Specialist, FEMA Region IV Wilson Shaffer, Chief, National Weather Service Evaluation Branch Abstract

The National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Hurricane Center (NHC) utilize the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computer simulation model to estimate hurricane and tropical storm surge inundation flooding during real time events. SLOSH is also used by emergency managers and States to develop hurricane evacuation zones and hazard planning. The SLOSH model is comprised of multiple basins, each basin modeling a specific area along the United States and selected international coastlines. Within each basin, grid cells are used to assign elevations or depths to geographical regions. Two SLOSH basins are presently used for the State of North Carolina, the Pamlico Sound basin and the Wilmington/Myrtle Beach basin. The Pamlico Sound basin covers the area from Bald Head Island, NC to the Delmarva Peninsula, and the Wilmington/Myrtle Beach Basin covers from Emerald Isle, NC to Winyah Bay, SC. These basins were created in the mid-1990s by the Meteorological Development Lab (MDL) of the NWS. At the time these basins were created, the best available data was the United State Geological Survey (USGS) 30 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), which were derived from USGS Topographic Maps dating back to the 1950s. Since the mid 1990s, the North Carolina coast has seen an explosive growth of population, resulting in major construction and roadway projects, dramatically changing the topography along the coast. In addition to the explosive growth, numerous hurricanes making landfall in North Carolina have reshaped the Outer Banks. Starting in 2000, North Carolina, FEMA, and twenty-two Federal and local community entities began working together to maintain up-to-date flood hazard data for the State. This included the acquisition of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) topographic data for the entire State. In 2006, FEMA approached North Carolina with the concept of a pilot SLOSH program, repopulating the existing Pamlico Sound SLOSH basin with the newly acquired topographic LiDAR, something never before accomplished. Previously, SLOSH basins would use existing DEMs, and require weeks of field survey work to determine barrier elevations. With the high-resolution LiDAR data, these barrier elevations could be determined through the use of cross-sections, reducing the total amount of time needed to accomplish the modeling. In less then 3 months, the Pamlico Sound basin was repopulated with the new LiDAR and ready to be used. With a MOU in place between the State of North Carolina and MDL, a new precedence for updating the SLOSH model is now set. Next Step: The results from the new Pamlico Sound basin will be used to update the Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HES) for the 21 North Carolina counties covered by the basin. FEMA is currently holding discussions with the State of North Carolina on the subject of conducting a Modernized HES using this new surge data. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Dorman John Dorman is the Director of the Geospatial and Technology Management Office in the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. In this capacity, he is responsible for the development, implementation and management of all geospatial data, applications and information technology infrastructure. Mr. Dorman previously served as the Planning Administrator for the Office of State Budget,

161

Planning, and Management. In this position he oversaw statewide programmatic and performance planning and budgeting, the North Carolina Geodetic Survey, the State Data Center, and the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. Following Hurricane Floyd in 1999, North Carolina became the first state in the nation to be designated a Cooperating Technical State under FEMA's Cooperating Technical Partners program. From this designation, the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program was created and placed under his supervision. In 2001, the Floodplain Mapping Program was moved to the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety to support emergency managers, first responders and law enforcement organizations with the identification and mapping of natural and man-made hazards and threats. In 2005, Mr. Dorman was given the responsibility for managing all information technology infrastructure and applications in the Division of Emergency Management. Mr. Dorman is a graduate of North Carolina State University with a degree in political science.

162

F-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Flood Mitigation Programs Sponsored By: FEMA

Moderator: Michael Grimm, FEMA Risk Reduction Branch

NFIP 2007 Floodplain Management Program Updates

David Stearrett, Section Chief, FEMA Floodplain Management Section, Mitigation Division Rachel Sears, Program Specialist, FEMA Mitgation Division, Risk Reduction Branch

Abstract

This presentation will provide a FEMA national office update on several NFIP floodplain management topics. Topics addressed will include: the NFIP FEMA/State Community Assistance-State Support Services Program (CAP-SSSE) with emphasis on the new requirement of using grants.gov for applications; map adoption associated with Map Modernization; ongoing new training opportunities related to NFIP community floodplain management, and; highlights of new floodplain management considerations within the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS).

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Stearrett David Stearrett is the Floodplain Management Section Chief in the National Office of FEMA's Mitigation Division. The Floodplain Management Section is responsible for managing the Community Assistance Program ­ State Support Services, map adoption associated with the Map Modernization initiative, NFIP community enrollment and compliance, the NFIP Community Rating System and overall coordination of NFIP floodplain management policy.

Unified Hazard Mitigation Grants

Deborah Ingram, Branch Chief, DHS, FEMA, Mitigation Risk Reduction Mike Grimm, Deputy Branch Chief, DHS, FEMA, Mitigation Risk Reduction Tony Hake, Section Chief, DHS, FEMA, Mitigation Risk Reduction Abstract

FEMA is unifying its 5 mitigation grant programs; Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA); Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM); Repetitive Flood Claims Program (RFC); and the Severe Repetitive Loss Program (SRL) to ensure more effective mitigation delivery, development of more successful partnerships, and development of portfolio management process and unifying processes. The existing programs will leverage their commonalities as well as rely on consistent policy and implementation guidance.

163

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Deb Ingram Deb Ingram is the Risk Reduction Branch Chief within the Mitigation Division. She has overall responsibility for administering the Risk Reduction Branch that includes Hazard Mitigation grant programs, building sciences and NFIP community enrollment, eligibility and compliance.

Freeboard: Building Code Requirements, and the Benefits and Costs of Freeboard

Christopher P. Jones, P.E., Coastal Engineer, Christopher Jones & Associates John Ingargiola, Civil Engineer, FEMA Abstract

A recently completed study of NFIP building standards documents the costs and benefits of including freeboard at the time of initial construction. This presentation will discuss the results of the study, including a generalized approach that allows users to determine a B/C for freeboard which depends only on a few items: a basic description of the flood hazards; a basic description of the building, the freeboard cost expressed as a percentage of the at-BFE building cost; the discount rate used in the analysis. The presentation will also summarize a post-Ivan study of building floor elevations in Orange Beach, AL, and the freeboard requirements contained in building codes and ASCE-24, Standard for Flood-Resistant Design and Construction.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Christopher P. Jones, P.E. Mr. Jones is a registered professional engineer specializing in coastal engineering and coastal zone management. He has 29 years experience as a practicing engineer, and has worked throughout the United States and abroad on studies and projects related to flood hazard mapping, coastal construction codes and coastal hazard mitigation. Mr. Jones recently completed a project to evaluate NFIP building standards. He serves as a consultant to FEMA and FEMA Contractors on a number of projects: development and update of Guidelines for coastal flood hazard mapping (Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts); post-storm building performance assessments; incorporation of NFIP requirements into building codes and standards; review of coastal LOMRs and flood studies; coastal flood hazard modeling for HAZUS. Mr. Jones serves as Chairman of the ASCE-7 Flood Loads Task Committee and the ASCE-24 Standard Committee for Flood Resistant Design and Construction. He was one of the principal authors on the rewrite of FEMA's Coastal Construction Manual, and on development of the Home Builder's Guide to Coastal Construction.

164

F-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ DFIRM Production & Maintenance

Moderator: Gerald L. Robinson, PE, CFM, Christopher B. Burke Engineering

DFIRM Maintenance: The Next Step in Making Maps Truly Paperless

Troy Carmann, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, ICON Engineer, Inc. Bill DeGrott, P.E., Manager, Floodplain Management Program, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Abstract

Effective DFIRMs will likely be maintained with data contributed by: Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs); Transportation layers provided by, and certified by, the local governments(s); Corporate boundary changes provided by, and certified by, the local government(s); New studies submitted to FEMA by reputable sources and approved by the NSP. This maintenance will ultimately occur on a federal database level ­ in both paper and digital formats. However, maintenance at the local level will be an essential cooperative component to strengthen a quick reflex for map modernization. We are now in a time where States have some communities with effective DFIRMs, some communities have preliminary DFIRMs, and some have no DFIRMs. However, the need to quickly provide the most current in updated floodplain maps is a continuing problem that needs to be addressed because it affects all floodplain managers regardless of the status of their DFIRMs. The main problem with regularly scheduled routine maintenance as will eventually be provided by FEMA is that paper maps are still being required, which is a significant cost and greatly extends the time frame of making updated maps readily available. Some communities with no DFIRMs have expressed concern that Map Mod funds will be used to maintain newly effective DFIRMs at the expense of completing initial DFIRMs. If the DFIRMs can be updated digitally, without requiring paper copies, much of the maintenance costs will be averted. This paper demonstrates that we have the technology to quickly provide this information in a digital format. There are a lot of different definitions of map maintenance. Some would consider it to include re-studies or new studies funded by Map Mod funds. Congress has authorized FEMA to use digital products as official maps, but FEMA has yet to fully embrace this opportunity. We need to overcome the paper map problem. One suggestion is to revise panels and distribute them as pdf files that can be plotted by those who need paper maps. Another is updated digital files that can be printed by the FIRMette process. This paper presents the results of a demonstration project, funded by FEMA through the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, wherein it is demonstrated that an effective DFIRM can be modified to include LOMRs, changes in transportation layers and changes in corporate boundaries and the results can be readily available through either pdf's or through the FIRMette process. A means is presented on how to best document changes to panels through the use of electronic pdf's of panels with revised areas. End users, may view the updated maps electronically, or at their own expense, produce a paper copy. In all of the above cases, (LOMRs, transportation layer changes, and changes in corporate boundaries), the cost of preparation of the digital files has been funded by others, so the only additional costs to FEMA will be putting the digital data into the digital system.

165

The essence of this paper is the demonstration of a production of a digital revision to the digital flood insurance rate maps. This paper addresses annotation, panel collar revisions and digital deliverables required to take the next step in producing paperless maps.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Troy Carmann Troy Carmann, PE, CFM, serves as a Project Manager for floodplain studies and DFIRM preparation for the consulting firm of ICON Engineering, Inc. in the Denver Colorado metropolitan area. Supplementing his Bachelor's degree in civil engineering, he has a Master's Degree in GIS. His 10-years of experience has given him a wide exposure to riverine flood control design projects, floodplain engineering and FEMA map modernization projects including both FIS Updates and DFIRM preparation. Through an IDIQ FEMA Region 8 contract, and also through contracts directly with FEMA CTP's, he has been responsible for the management of over a thousand DFIRM panels. He is currently managing the ICON Engineering contract with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District to implement the incorporation of FEMA Letters of Map Revisions (LOMRs), into effective DFIRMs. This demonstration contract is funded through a FEMA grant, and is the second phase of study. The results of the first phase were presented at the 2005 ASFPM in Madison, Wisconsin in the paper entitled "Local Map Modernization: DFIRM Map Maintenance and Local Letters of Map Change Reviews." His current work focuses on how best to revise effective DFIRMs as we transition from paper based DFIRMs to actual digital products.

Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Automated Quality Review Tool

Katherine Hess, CFM, Hazard Mappoing Analyst, Dewberry Ken Logsdon, Jr., Technology Integration Director, Dewberry Abstract

With the advent of Digital FIRMs, automated tools have been created to check the format and completeness of the digital products; however, much of the checking to ensure consistency between hardcopy and digital products, as well as the integrity of the underlying data, is still done manually. In order to improve the efficiency of these checks, Dewberry created an automated quality review tool. The tool performs a variety of checks between submitted spatial files and DFIRM database tables, such as verifying stream stationing, base flood elevation placement, and floodways widths. The results are output in several formats. An excel output document highlights data consistency and integrity errors found between the spatial files as determined by a series of algorithms programmed in the tool. A profile is also created which shows the relationship between the water surface elevations in the cross section database tables and the plotted base flood elevations. This profile creates a visual guide that can be used for refining the analysis for limited detailed streams (streams without a floodway and floodway data table). In addition, the toolset captures data errors and stores them as a spatial review comment within a quality review comments polygon feature class. The quality review comments featureset automatically includes a standard review call, the date of the call, initials of the reviewer, as well as fields for the comment to be addressed and final reviewed.

166

These tools eliminate the need for manual measuring of distances and widths on hardcopy panels. It also minimizes the need for DFIRM paper printing, reduces the time spent hand-writing quality review comments on hardcopy panels, and results in a digital comments layer that can be shared with the original study contractor. In the end, the tool output components generate a more accurate and comprehensive review and reduces the time spent manually checking and measuring during the review. This tool has been used for various projects of different scope and size and has proved effective for reviewing streams studied by detailed, limited detailed, and redelineation methods.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Katherine Hess Katherine Hess is a Hazard Mapping Analyst for the North Carolina Cooperating Technical State (CTS) Program under Dewberry's Flood Map Production Contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the flood hazard mapping program. She has spent the past 1.5 years working on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) production, her current area of responsibility focuses primarily on quality reviews of the North Carolina CTS Program and the production of revised North Carolina digital FIRM panels. Ms. Hess graduated from the Pennsylvania State University with a B.S. in Geography in 2005. She has been a Certified Floodplain Manager since March 2006.

Enhanced Technical and Coordination Methods to Prepare Revised DFIRMs for Miami-Dade County, Florida

Gilbert Jones, P.E., Department Manager, Dewberry Mathini Sreetharan, P.E., Senior Engineer, Dewberry Debasri Mitra, Project Manager, Dewberry Abstract

As the production of some DFIRM studies take many years to complete, the continuity of issues and incorporation of new data become increasingly challenging. This process becomes even more complex when working with "non-traditional" flooding patterns and slightly sloping or relatively flat topography, which would include such features as drainage canals, overbank ponding areas, storage ponds, shallow flooding areas, and interfaces of coastally-influenced, canal and ponding areas. For the Miami-Dade County, Florida DFIRM project, all of these challenges are present. In addition, complicating the analysis further are heavily populated areas transitioning to Everglades conservation lands and significant groundwater/surface water interaction throughout the area. Fortunately, FEMA has worked with the Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources (DERM) and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in a cooperative technical partner (CTP) arrangement to assist with the coordination necessary to carry this type of study over several years of effort. Dewberry & Davis LLC has been involved as a FEMA contractor on this study to compile local study contractor information and to mesh all these extraordinary factors into an accurate and understandable DFIRM product. This presentation will cover the relevant technical aspects with XP-SWM modeling across ten drainage basins and go into detail about the challenges to map the areas using current guidelines and specifications. Highlights of the presentation will focus on the use of GIS technology to prepare detailed flood shapes.

167

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Gilbert Jones Gilbert Jones, PE is a department manager in Dewberry's Hazard Engineering Resources group focused on the south and central portions of the U.S. He has considerable experience in conducting flood studies and coordinating flood map production activities. Recent completed projects include overseeing inundation mapping resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and several DFIRM projects throughout the southeast.

168

F-7 Floodplain Mapping: Cooperative Efforts and Advanced Technology Sponsored By: Michael Baker Moderator: Turgay Dabak, Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Cooperative Efforts and Advanced Technology Create a New County-wide FIRM Collier County Flood Insurance Study - Part I

Sean D. Roche, P.E., FMC4 Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Brad G. Loar, Director, Community Mitigation Programs Branch, FEMA Region IV Robert C. Wiley, P.E., CFM, Principal Project Manager, Collier County, Engineering Services Department Abstract

Located on the southwest coast of Florida, Collier County comprises approximately 2,100 square miles. It is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west and extends to Everglade National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve to the east. In December 1998, the Preliminary Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) were issued for Collier County and incorporated areas by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In December 2001, Collier County formally appealed the coastal analyses presented in the preliminary FIS, summarizing a number of technical concerns. In March of 2004, Collier County and the City of Naples shifted their efforts from studies focused on refuting the proposed FIRMs to a coordinated effort and partnership with FEMA to provide a comprehensive update to the entire set of FIRMs for the County. Due to concerns with the increased Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), Collier County and the City of Naples hired Tomasello Consulting Engineers (TCE) to review the preliminary FIS and FIRMs. In December 2001, TCE prepared a report entitled "Appeal of Flood Insurance Restudy (RFIS) Proposed Base Flood Elevation for Collier County and the City of Naples as the basis for the appeal. In March 2004, after several years and much discussion between FEMA and the County regarding technical issues, a consensus was reached and a submittal schedule was agreed upon to revise the FIRM and FIS with additional analysis performed by TCE. However, due to ongoing technical difficulties with the flood analysis models, the County was not able to complete the modeling and associated floodplain analysis by the due date established by FEMA. As a result, FEMA issued a Letter of Final Determination (LFD) dated May 17, 2005 to Collier County and incorporated areas stating that the BFEs from the original Preliminary FIRMs and FIS would become effective six months later, on November 17, 2005. After briefly considering litigation, the County met with FEMA to discuss an approach to eventually incorporate their new modeling data as a county-wide Physical Map Revision (PMR). On September 12, 2005 the County became a Cooperative Technical Partner (CTP) with FEMA. The CTP agreement fostered a partnership between the County, City of Naples, the South Florida Water Management District and FEMA to work together to prepare a comprehensive update to the FIS and FIRMs for Collier County. With a shared common goal FEMA and the County, supported by Michael Baker, Dewberry, and Tomasello Consulting Engineers, have been working together as a team to restudy flood risks and revise the countywide FIRMs. The team participates in weekly conference calls to review current status of deliverables, discuss technical issues, and share modeling and mapping expertise. On the monthly basis, managers from FEMA and the other CTP participants discuss study progress, budget, and schedule issues.

169

On a quarterly basis progress is reported to elected officials. This on-going study demonstrates a successful experience with CTPs through close cooperation with all parties. This paper will focus on the benefits of the CTP program and present lessons learned throughout the study process. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Sean Roche Mr. Roche has more than 17 years of experience as a civil engineer/hydrogeologist specializing in water resources management. He serves as a Project Manager and National Pre-Scoping/Scoping Lead in Baker's Atlanta-based Regional Management Center as the National Service Provider to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Map Modernization Program. In the role of Project Manager, he is responsible for providing technical guidance and monitoring Mapping Partners performing Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) within Florida. Mr. Roche facilitated the development of the Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) agreement with Collier County, the City of Naples, South Florida Water Management District, and FEMA Region IV. Since establishing the CTP agreement, Mr. Roche has managed the review efforts, coordinated resolution of technical issues, and facilitated regular communications between participants on behalf of FEMA.

Cooperative Efforts and Advanced Technology Create a New County-wide FIRM Collier County Flood Insurance Study - Part II

Zhida Song-James, Senior Technical Consultant, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Mathini Sreetharan, Senior Engineer, Dewberry Richard S. Tomasello, P.E., President, Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. Robert C. Wiley, P.E., CFM, Principal Project Manager, Engineering Services Department Abstract

Located on the southwest coast of Florida, Collier County comprises approximately 2,100 square miles. It is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west and extends to Everglade National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve to the east. The effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were created based on a study conducted in 1986 which designated inland areas mostly as Approximate Zone A or Zone X. Without specific base flood elevations (BFE), such maps do not provide the detailed flood risk information for the County which is experiencing rapid development. Collier County and FEMA had conducted separate studies in the past but were unable to successfully create countywide FIRMs based on the studies. Facing the challenge, FEMA and the County, supported by Michael Baker, Dewberry, and Tomasello Consulting Engineers, have been working together as a team to restudy flood risks and renew countywide FIRMs. The extremely flat topography, coincidental rain with hurricane seasons, and interactions among coastal inundation, ground water and surface drainage canals with multiple control structures creates a complex system that cannot be easily modeled by conventional methods. In this study, a two-dimensional gridbased hydrodynamic model, S2DMM, developed by Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc. is applied to seven major basins over the County. The model simulates each of the rainfall-runoff processes, including infiltration, percolation, and soil moisture accumulation and depletion. It then routes the runoff dynamically over ground surfaces, sloughs, and canal systems. The water surface elevations are computed for channels as well as overland grids.

170

A model was developed for each basin using GIS databases and a stepwise approach including, initial setup for primary drainage; parameterization and secondary drainage; calibration and validation; and final production. The submittals from each step undergo a detailed technical review and discussion. Through such a process, the team collectively determines the model set up; selects major storms for model calibration and validation; and determines modeling parameters for flood insurance study and mapping. Floodplain boundaries and contours of BFE are created from water surface elevations computed at grids. For areas affected by both coastal and riverine flooding, the final BFEs are determined by combined probability of both flooding sources. This on-going study demonstrates a successful experience of using a non-traditional approach to study and map flat floodplains through close cooperation with all parties. This paper will focus on the modeling and mapping technology, discuss the necessity and applicability of the two-dimension modeling approach, and present lessons learned from the study process.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Zhida Song-James Zhida Song-James is Senior Technical Consultant in Michael Baker, Jr. Inc. With 26 years experience, she provides expertise and technical leadership in hydrology, hydraulics, flood mapping and NFIP regulations. She is a Certified Professional Hydrologist and a Certified Floodplain Manager. Zhida Song-James held B.S degree in Civil Engineering, M.S. in Environmental Engineering, and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering with specialization in Hydrology and Water Resources. She has been served in technical committees of American Society of Civil Engineers and American Water Resource Association. In addition to her professional activities, she is a volunteer for Education and Science Society to provide libraries to rural schools in her native China, and is active in supporting local animal rescue works.

Cooperative Efforts and Community Involvement in the Larimer County Flood Insurance Study

Kevin Doyle, Project Manage, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Susan Duba Hayes, City of Fort Collins Dan Carlson, FEMA Region VIII Nancy Steinberger, FEMA Region VIII Abstract

Located in the northern front range of Colorado, Larimer County comprises approximately 2,600 square miles, contains a population of approximately 266,000, and is one of Colorado's fastest growing Counties. It is bounded by the Continental Divide on the west, Wyoming on the north, and extends into the eastern plains of Colorado. Larimer County has experienced two catastrophic floods in the past 30 years: · The Big Thompson Canyon flood occurred on July 31, 1976. The flood killed 145 people (including six who were never found), destroyed 418 houses and damaged another 138, destroyed 152 businesses and caused more than $40 million in damages. · The July 1997 flood in Fort Collins was caused by the heaviest rains ever documented over an urbanized area in Colorado. Five people died in the flood, 54 were injured, about 200 homes were lost, and 1,500 homes and businesses were damaged. Damages at Colorado State University were alone about $100 million, including catastrophic losses to the library.

171

The combination of these factors made Larimer County a high-priority for Map Modernization within FEMA Region VIII. In March 2004 the Scoping Meeting for the Larimer County Restudy was held. After the Scoping Meeting the Federal Emergency Management Agency funded the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to develop a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Larimer County and Incorporated Areas. New hydrologic and hydraulic studies were not included as part of the scope due to lack of FEMA funding. Due to experiences with past floods, and concerns that the effective flood hazard information was outdated, several communities coordinated with CWCB and FEMA to have locally developed and funded studies included in the FIS and on the DFIRM. The City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland, and Larimer County submitted six new studies that provided more than 30 miles of detailed flood hazard information. These studies were reviewed by FEMA and incorporated into the Larimer County Preliminary FIS and DFIRM that were issued on September 30, 2005. Prior to and during the Post-Preliminary processing period, the communities in Larimer County remained an integral part of the outreach and helped to resolve an appeal on one of the more contentious studies. The Larimer County FIS and DFIRM became effective in December 2006. Even after the Larimer County maps have become effective, FEMA continues to coordinate with communities in Larimer County on updates to the FIS and DFIRM. With a shared common goal FEMA, CWCB (and their contractors), and Communities within Larimer County, have been working together as a team to restudy flood risks, revise the countywide Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and provide outreach to the general public. This study demonstrates the incorporation of locally developed flood hazard data into a FEMA DFIRM that was only attainable through close coordination and cooperation with all parties. This paper will discuss the benefits of this cooperation program and present lessons learned throughout the study process. The paper will also discuss the ongoing need for coordination during the map maintenance period.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Kevin Doyle Kevin Doyle is a Project Manager in the Denver office of Michael Baker Jr., Inc. He monitors the progress of studies in FEMA Region VIII and serves as a Technical Manager for review and completion of Flood Insurance Studies in the Region. Kevin has a BS degree from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is a registered professional engineer in Colorado and a Certified Floodplain Manager. Mr. Doyle previously served as the Revisions (Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) and conditional LOMRs) Manager for Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in FEMA Regions VIII and X. He also served as a manager and technical resource for a FEMA mapping partner. His project and management experience includes over 10 years of a variety of Water Resource Engineering projects and Flood Insurance Study work.

Variation of Flood Statistics as a Function of Record Length

Brian G. Koper1, Civil Associate, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Wilbert O. Thomas Jr.2, Senior Technical Consultant, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Abstract

Flood frequency analysis serves as a basis of engineering design for hydraulic and flood detention structures and for floodplain mapping. Guidelines For Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin 17B, published in 1982, is used by all Federal agencies and many local and state agencies in estimating flood discharges, like the 1-percent-annual chance flood, for gaged streams. Bulletin 17B is based on fitting the Pearson Type III distribution to the logarithms of the annual peak flows. The Hydrologic Frequency Analysis Work Group (HFAWG) of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Information has

172

developed a plan for revising Bulletin 17B that will evaluate relevant research that has been accomplished since the publication of Bulletin 17B. A major part of this plan is to evaluate new statistical procedures that may be an improvement over existing Bulletin 17B procedures. The testing will be based on a sample of about 80 long-term gaging stations that generally have more than 75 years of record with several stations having historical flood data and low and high outliers. Many of these stations are in the U.S. Geological Survey Hydro-Climatic Data Network, a national network of gaging stations whose streamflow records are not affected by land-use change or regulation. Our analyses will utilize split-sampling techniques to analyze the first 20 years, first 40 years, first 60 years and the full record for each long-term gaging station and to evaluate how the flood discharges and the sample skew coefficient vary with record length. The objective is to evaluate the affects of historical data and low and high outliers on various flood statistics for varying record lengths. The skew coefficient is the sample statistic that is most affected by time-sampling variations of the three statistics needed to define the Pearson Type III distribution. The sample coefficient based on the full period of record will be related to watershed characteristics to determine if meaningful statistical relations exist. The Bulletin 17B procedure for estimating skew is another area needing improvement. The analyses proposed for this paper are in preparation for the HFAWG testing of other statistical procedures that will begin in the Spring of 2007.

1 2

Civil Associate, Michael Baker, Jr., 3601 Eisenhower Ave., Suite 130, Alexandria, Virginia. Senior Technical Consultant, Michael Baker, Jr., 3601 Eisenhower Ave., Suite 130, Alexandria, Virginia.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Brian G. Koper Mr. Koper is a Civil Associate working with the Mapping on Demand team as a revisions coordinator for Michael Baker Jr., Inc. He currently reviews the hydraulic and hydrologic analysis used for processing Conditional Letters of Map Revision and Letters of Map Revision for FEMA Region IX (California and Hawaii). Mr. Koper earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

173

F-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Hydrologic Modeling

Moderator: Scott W. Brookhart, PE, CFM, Greenhorne & O'Mara

Estimating Probable Maximum Floods in Ungaged, Rapidly Developing Watersheds

Eric Dove, P.E., CFM, Senior Water Resources Engineer, Olsson Associates Abstract

One of the challenges in dam design is to develop a reasonable estimate of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) inflow hydrograph when the watershed is ungaged. Compound this challenge by a rapidly urbanizing contributing drainage area and the estimates can be an order of magnitude different, largely due to unknown development pattern. The Lake Winnebago project on the outskirts of Kansas City, Missouri proved to be such a challenge. The hydrologic approach used a combination of comparable watershed gages and prior studies to develop a watershed model that produced reasonable estimates of the current conditions and then was modified based on anticipated development patterns to the ultimate fully built-out conditions. The approach is general enough that it can be employed on a multitude of PMF studies in ungaged urbanizing watersheds. Lake Winnebago is located in the City of Lake Winnebago, Cass County, Missouri which is part of the large Kansas City metropolitan area. The Lake Winnebago watershed encompasses portion of Jackson County and Cass County, Missouri. The contributing drainage area is 22 square miles and there is an upstream dam that controls 34% of the total drainage area. The drainage basin tributary to Lake Winnebago was divided into six subbasins for the purposes of hydrologic modeling of the new roadway crossings and design of the new dam embankment. Precipitation estimates were derived from aerial corrected depths from NOAA Technical Paper No. 40 for the 2- through the 100-year return periods, and Hydrometeorological Report (HMR) 51 and HMR-52 for the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). The 2- through the 100-year precipitation temporal distribution utilized SCS type II distribution while the PMP utilized the first through fourth quartile Huff distribution. The critical duration analysis indicated the 24-hour type II pattern controlled while the 6-hour first quartile Huff distribution controlled for the PMF. The existing soil groups and impervious areas within the watershed were estimated from color aerial photographs along with current zoning limitations. The resulting Curve Number (CN) was developed along with the watershed sub-basin lag estimates. The information was coded into HEC-HMS and the results compared to several adjacent data sources with similar hydrologic conditions. The data from adjacent watersheds included two stream gages, MoDOT regression equations and several watershed studies performed near Kansas City. The HEC-HMS model was successfully calibrated within reasonable input parameter limits to match these adjacent data sources. The next step was to evaluate future development scenarios and the resulting impacts to the inflow hydrograph. Two sources of data were utilized namely the Kansas City area studies and the MoDOT regression equations that incorporate the basin development factor. There have been several studies on the impacts of urbanization on the hydrologic cycle but these data sources utilized gages within urbanized watersheds to develop the anticipated changes to the watershed lag time and CN. The non-developed portions of the watershed were populated with the anticipated development scenarios and each sub-basin lag time and CN was recalculated. The calibrated HEC-HMS model resulted in a good agreement with the MoDOT regression equations and Kansas City area studies that utilized a basin development parameter. It

174

was shown that the fully built-out condition will raise the peak inflow and volume by 40% and 14%, respectively. This process incorporated a calibration procedure that improved the accuracy and reliability of the calculated results and successfully built upon prior work.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Eric Dove, PE, CFM Civil Engineer Education: University of Nebraska-Lincoln BS Civil Engineering, 1993 University of Nebraska-Lincoln MS Civil Engineering, 2003 Registrations: Civil Engineer : Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Certi. ed Floodplain Manager Professional Associations Association of State Floodplain Managers Olsson Professional Experience 2003 to Present Years of Professional Experience 13 Years Experience Summary Eric is a skilled project manager and his experience includes a wide variety of stormwater and municipal projects. He has been project manager and design engineer for projects including storm water management studies, bridge hydraulics, FEMA . oodway evaluations, FEMA map revisions, dams, subdivision storm sewer systems, detention ponds, water quality improvement ponds, wetland mitigations, storm sewer rehabilitation, and open channel design. Relevant Experience · Design engineer performing 21 FEMA hydrology studies in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana for the Omaha District Corps of Engineers. · Fort Calhoun Flood Mitigation Plan ­ Project manager for public participation, hydrology, hydraulics and . ood plain mapping for the City of Fort Calhoun, Nebraska. · Ponca Flood Mitigation Plan ­ Project manager for the public participation, hydrology, hydraulics and . ood plain mapping for the City of Ponca. The recommended . ood mitigation strategy involved wet . ood proo. ng, property buy-outs, culvert improvements, and construction of a levee. The project is currently going through the Nebraska Resources Development Fund technical feasibility evaluation. · Wahoo Floodway Mitigation Study ­ Project Manager, designer and lead modeler for mitigating encroachment of Waste Water Treatment Plant. · Central City Floodplain Revisions ­ Project manager and lead design engineer for the FEMA physical map revision of two . oodways that pass through Central City, Nebraska. Work included calculations of. ood attenuation behind undersized culverts, levee overtoppings, and split . ows routings. · Little Sandy Creek Watershed Project ­ Project manager for developing the technical feasibility application to the Nebraska Resources Development Fund for . ve dams in Southeast Nebraska. Work included economic feasibility analysis, geotechnical investigations, groundwater recharge estimates, rural highway modi. cations, sedimentation structure design, and recreational amenities · Stander, Timmberman, and Ranch Road Dams ­ Project manager for the design and construction oversight of a . ood control dam in Northern Cass County, Nebraska. · Cipriano Dam ­ Project manager for the design and construction oversight of a . ood control road dam near Garland, Nebraska. · Lower Turkey Creek Watershed Analysis: Project manager for the hydrologic, hydraulic and economic analysis for the siting 19 dams within a 770 square mile watershed for agricultural and urban . ood control. The project is current under . nal design.

175

PMP to the Max: Finding the Critical Probable Maximum Storm Orientation

Gilbert Inouye, P.E., Engineer/Associate, Woolpert, Inc. David C. Froehlich, Ph.D., P.E., Technical Specialist, Woolpert, Inc. Abstract

The probable maximum flood (that is, the flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in the drainage basin under study) or PMF has been generally accepted as the design flood for dams in the United States whose failure would pose a threat to public safety. More recently, the PMF has been adopted as the design flood for large dams in many other countries as well. A PMF is the calculated runoff produced by the probable maximum storm (PMS), which is a temporal and spatial distribution over a watershed of the probable maximum precipitation (PMP). PMP is the greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible for a given size storm at a particular geographic location at a certain time of year. Generalized all-season estimates of PMP for the United States, east of the 105th longitude are presented in Hydrometeorological Report No. 51 (HMR 51) prepared by the National Weather Service (NWS). A companion report, Hydrometeorological Report No. 52 (HMR 52), provides criteria and instructions for configuring the storm to produce the PMF. The PMS pattern is usually oriented in relation to the drainage basin to produce the maximum average precipitation depth on the catchment. The center of the storm, where the greatest rainfall occurs, often will be located near the geographic center of the drainage basin, and the storm pattern will be rotated so that the basin is covered as much as possible by the isohyets of greatest rainfall depth. Some alteration of location and alignment might be needed to make the total precipitation depth as great as possible. However, a storm centered closer to the basin outlet may produce a flood with a greater peak discharge. The computer program HMR52, which was developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), can be used to apply the procedures contained in HMR 52. The program automatically produces a storm having a 72-hour duration, but the storm totals are balanced so that PMP values for shorter durations are also contained in the storm. The program will automatically position the center of the storm at the geographic center of the drainage basin rotate the alignment in 10-degree intervals to find the angle that produces the maximum precipitation. However, adjustment of the storm position, and finer variation of alignment angle, needs to be made manually. A computer program that examines closely and thoroughly locations and alignments for the critical probable maximum storm orientation has been developed and is described here. An exhaustive search procedure employing an adaptive grid is used. It uses GIS methodology as a tool to delineate catchments from any point along a stream and determines the PMP for the basin. The program provides an easy-to-use graphical interface, and allows the critical PMS orientation to be found with a minimal effort. Several examples are presented that show the effectiveness of the search procedure.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Gilbert Inouye Mr. Inouye is a well-qualified systems analyst who customizes applications, designs user interfaces and database systems, specializing in water management services. He is also responsible for ensuring that projects meet both cartographic standards and Woolpert standards for database accuracy and contract compliance.

176

With masters' degrees in civil engineering and project and systems management, Mr. Inouye also has practical GIS experience. Before coming to Woolpert in 1997, he supervised GIS operations at another firm, where he developed GIS applications, supervised GIS projects, provided training and technical support, and administered a Sun Solaris network. This combination of practical experience and academic preparation uniquely qualifies him to understand what clients need from a professional systems analyst. Mr. Inouye is proficient with GIS packages, including ArcGIS, ArcInfo, MapObjects, ArcObjects , ODE, ArcView, AutoCAD, and SQL server and Oracle, as well as HEC modeling software. He has also demonstrated his expertise with various programming languages, such as C, C++, Avenue, and Visual Basic, and a variety of operating systems, including Unix, Windows NT, and Solaris.

Bexar County Land Use and Impervious Cover Mapping

John S. Grounds, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, D.WRE, Grounds Anderson, LLC John Espinoza, PE, CFM, Halff Associates Elle Anderson, PE, CFM, Grounds Anderson, LLC Brandon Grimm, GISP Abstract

A Land Use and Impervious Cover map was created for Bexar County, Texas. These Land Use classifications will be used by the County to determine storm water run off values by parcel. Over 550,000 parcels were analyzed from the Bexar County Appraisal District. Parcels were assigned predetermined impervious cover values for residential parcels under 1 acre or where remotely sensed multi-spectral data was insufficient. These predetermined values were calculated by field verification and remote data. Other parcels that fall outside the (< 1 acre residential) were intersected with the preprocessed impervious cover feature data set and dissolved to calculate a percent impervious and impervious area for each parcel. Other features calculated on a parcels level include SSURGO soil data, Aquifer Recharge and Transition Zones, and Land Use. This paper will discuss how these maps, geodatabases, and feature datasets are suitable for use in floodplain modeling, water quality analysis, watershed management, and storm water fee development. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John S. Grounds Dr. Grounds has over eighteen years of civil engineering experience which has included the management and execution of successful Civil Engineering and Geographic Information Systems projects. John Also has unparalleled experience related to the planning, analysis and design of water resource systems, water supply, conveyance systems, site grading and drainage, flood control planning, and hydraulic structures. Dr. Grounds has taught CEVE 480 Senior Design at Rice University since the Spring of 2002. He has also taught courses on the application of GIS and a review of open channel hydraulics and hydrology for the Principles and Practice Exam. Dr. Grounds is an owner of Grounds Anderson, LLC where he, his wife Lynell, and Elle Anderson, CFM (BSCE Rice 2001) provide engineering services to clients ranging from large public entities to individual homeowners. He has managed the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project for Harris County Flood Control District, designed a 78-inch sanitary sewer tunnel as part of the Greater Houston Wastewater Program, civil site improvements for Continental Airlines to support the maintenance of a Boeing 777, designed a waterline replacement for the Denver Harbor Subdivision for the City of Houston, determined the water yield from the Toledo Bend Reservoir for the Sabine River Authority, and designed numerous site improvements for private sector clients.

177

Dr. Grounds has more than 30 publications and presentations related to extreme rainfall events and floodplain management. Dr. Grounds is active in the American Water Resources Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, Association of State Floodplain Managers, and the Texas Floodplain Management Association where he has chaired meetings and held office at the local, state, and national level.

178

F-9 International Aspects and Issues: Flood Management in the Netherlands Moderator: Adri Verwey, Delft Hydraulics Dutch Advances in Monitoring Systems for Early Warning an Prevention of Levee Breaching

Meindert A. Van, Ph.D., GeoDelft Jos Maccabiani, M.Sc., GeoDelft Robert J. Meijer, Ph.D., TNO-ICT Abstract

In many parts of the world, the built environment is under considerable risk of being flooded. Future climate change is expected to increase this risk, esspecially in delta-areas world wide. This increases the importance of protective structures like dykes and levees. Since not only the expected water forces attacking the levees have a high level of uncertainty, but also the strength of soil and soil-structure interaction, there is a clear need for an early-warning system which incorporate the knowledge on levee behaviour. Indeed, most levees do not fail directly due to lack of crest height. More often it is the lack of soil strength causing failure and subsequent flooding. Incorporating soil strength into early warning systems allows more time for taking discissions and mitigating measures and for evacuation of people and livestock. In recent years, sensor technology, remote sensing technology and computing have improved significantly. This led a consortium of organisations, among which the Dutch national knowledge institutes GeoDelft and TNO, to start a R&D programme to create generic sensor-enabled levees and the accompanying earlywarning systems which incorporates multi-scale sensor data as well as state of the art levee strength diagnosis and prediction algorithms. The first stage is a project called "IJkdijk" (Dutch for "Calibration levee"). IJkdijk is a four year programme to select combinations of promising sensor technologies by performing over 50 large scale field tests between February 2007 and February 2011. The IJkdijk (53° 8'59.55"N, 7°11'13.96"E) is located near the village of Bellingwolde, in the north east of the Netherlands. To illustrate the technical possibilities, several technical solutions for the monitoring of levee stability will be discussed. These solutions are validated in several large scale experiments, for three levee failure mechanisms "slope stability", "piping" and "overtopping erosion". Several challenges await before an effective and efficient flood early warning and prevention system can be built. The difficulties relate to uncertainties in soil behaviour, to the data-acquisition infrastructure, to the sensor telecommunication infrastructure and to the power infrastructure. The paper is concluded with an analysis of possible implementation of these technologies in several delta-environments, with an emphasis on the Dutch situation.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Meindert Van Meindert Van (1964) works as Director of Knowledge for GeoDelft, the Dutch institute for geoengineering. After his Masters education in civil engineering at the Delft University of Technology he went on for a PhD study on `Stability of Continuous Welded Rail Track' at the same University. Working with

179

GeoDelft since 1989, Meindert has worked on many consulting and research projects in road, railroad and dike engineering, with a special interest in weak soils. Meindert Van is a member in many committees. Some of his current affiliations are: · Chairman of Technical Committee TC1 `Coastal Engineering and Dike technology' of ISSMGE. · Member of the Steering Committee for the VI International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering · Member of CROW-coordination committee Roads and Railways Leader of European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP); focus area Quality of life: Working Group `Natural and man-made Hazards'.

Flood Protection and the Development of a Flood Risk Management Policy in the Netherlands

Hans W. Balfoort, Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Abstract

The Netherlands is one of the coastal nations of the North Sea and is situated in the delta of the rivers Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt. The country has always been vulnerable to floods from both the rivers and the sea. This vulnerability grew over the centuries as land use changed and as agriculture, trade and industry developed. Floods have occurred regularly and often initiated advances in flood protection technology and changes in the institutions responsible for flood protection. The most recent major flood occurred in 1953, when 1800 people drowned in a storm that breeched the levees in the southwest of the Netherlands. A national program was started that included far reaching structural measures such as a shortening of the coastline and strengthening of the flood defenses on both the sea and the rivers. The program also included institutional changes in the roles and responsibilities of the national government, regional and local government and of the waterboards. The program took more than 30 years to be completed. The majority of the Netherlands now enjoys a legislative safety standard against flooding that ranges from 1:1,250 to 1:10,000. The range in levels of safety takes into account that the consequences of a flood may differ per region. These levels were decided upon in the 1960's. Since the 1960s, the population has tripled (to 16 million) and the economy has increased tenfold (to $500 billion GDP). This growth is not spread evenly across the country. In anticipation of climate change and accelerated sea level rise, a debate has started if the present legislative flood safety levels should be upgraded, if the range in safety levels should be increased and if a system of more local differentiation could be developed. There is also increasing awareness among government institutions that the policy on flood protection should not focus exclusively on the prevention of floods, but also on mitigation of the consequences of a flood. The dramatic events in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina have brought this issue into the public debate. The outcome of the debate should help develop an advanced flood protection policy that reduces the probability of a flood and mitigates the effects of a flood both in terms of casualties and damage.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Hans Balfoort Hans Balfoort (51) has worked in water management both in the private sector and within the government for most of his professional career. He is currently coordinator for Safety & Security ­ Water Issues with the Directorate General Water Affairs of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. He is closely involved in the further development of the national policy on flood protection and flood risk management in the Netherlands. In his former position, Hans was coördinator for national coastal

180

management policies and has represented the Netherlands in European Conventions on coastal and marine regulation. In both his present and his former position, Hans has initiated cooperation projects between his ministry and US federal and state government organisations.

Innovations in Levee Design, Monitoring and Safety Control in the Netherlands

Petrus T. M. Dircke, M.Sc., Director Water Management, ARCADIS Netherlands Abstract

The Netherlands has many centuries of history fighting against the sea, with more then half of country lying below sea level. The first water boards started in the 12th century and the Dutch are developing their flood control skills since then. Major floods from the sea in 1953 and form rivers in 1993 and 1995 gave a new boost to the Dutch efforts to protect its citizens against flooding. The Delta works were built, with a combination of sea dikes, complete closures of estuaries and large navigable flood gates. Later all the major river levees were raised and strengthened in the National River Flood Emergency Program. During these efforts, many new technologies were development to improve the performance of levees, dikes and flood control structures. Also, the Dutch raised their standard of organization and of their monitoring and safety control inspection programs. The resulting safety level in the Netherlands and also the level of the Dutch knowledge of what is called "Delta Technology" are considered to be among the highest in the world. But even today the Dutch still continue to raise their standard, challenged by new safety demands, land subsidence, sea water level rise and new ecological insights. This paper will discuss several new ways to improve the levees and levee safety standards in the Netherlands.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Petrus T. M. Dircke Mr. Dircke is Director of the Water Division of ARCADIS and responsible for the coordination of all water-related activities within ARCADIS Netherlands and of the international ARCADIS water activities worldwide on innovations in Dutch Delta Technology and flood control, levee design, improvement and monitoring, and integrated river- and water management. He organized and headed an ARCADIS Engineering Workshop on Coastal Flood management and innovative levee design for the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, USA (2005). In New Orleans he is currently involved in the safety inspection of levees and in the USACE conceptual study on two storm surge barriers and several alternatives in the Inner harbor Navigation Canal (2006). He has also directed flood-control projects in Belgium, Sumatra, Java, Nigeria, Morocco, Suriname, and Kenya. Education: Specialized courses in hydraulic engineering, river basin management, hydrogeology, civil engineering, irrigation, Wageningen University, the Netherlands. He obtained his masters degree in Water Management at the Wageningen University in 1985. Organizations: Dutch Institute of Agriculture Engineers; ONRI workgroup-water (Dutch association of consulting engineers); board member KNHM Limburg (non-profit agency for improvement of the rural environment); member VNO/NCW (Dutch industry association).

181

SESSION G THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1:45 P.M. ­ 3:15 P.M.

G-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Green Technology Moderator: Erin Ansell, PE, CFM, CDM Green Infrastructure Best Management Practices ­ A Hypothetical Development for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska

Carter H. Hubbard, P.E., CFM, Water Resources Engineer, Olsson Associates Ben Higgins, P.E., CFM, Senior Engineer, City of Lincoln, Public Works/Utilities Department, Watershed Management Abstract

The City of Lincoln, Nebraska and Olsson Associates have joined together to develop a case study on the implementation of Green Infrastructure Best Management Practices (GIBMP's) and Low Impact Development (LID) within the City of Lincoln. The focal point of the project is a subdivision, submitted with conventional engineering design practices, including curb and gutter sections, storm sewer drainage collection systems, and concentrated detention cells. A hypothetical re-design (as if the development had not occurred already) of the subdivision will be developed, featuring GIBMP's and LID concepts for stormwater management. GIBMP/LID design can be used to minimize changes to runoff timing and volume due to development. The BMP's selected for the site will be specific to the regional environment and the regulations governing new site development and stormwater management within the City of Lincoln. Hypothetical re-design plans for the development will be used to create cost comparisons, and conceptual land use plans for GIBMP's/LID, which can be used for future development projects within the City of Lincoln. The costs and benefits of the existing development are known. The conceptual cost and benefit estimates of the hypothetical GIBMP/LID re-design will be developed by the authors in order to illustrate the economics of this type of design to the development community in the City of Lincoln, as compared to conventional design. Cost assessments will include anticipated maintenance costs for the GIBMP/LID features. GIBMP/LID designs provide for increased environmental and flood control benefits. The hypothetical BMP/LID concepts designed for the development will provide a sample data set for the City of Lincoln that presents and explains methods that can be used to improve stormwater management, stream stabilization, vegetative management, and operations and maintenance. Where possible, the BMP's will be designed to reduce infrastructure costs reduce stormwater runoff impacts, improve water quality, and enhance aesthetics and quality of life. The BMPs will be designed to be adaptive to the climate and environment of southeast Nebraska. A detailed example of the BMP/LID design practices would provide the necessary evidence to justify changes to conventional design standards. The economic analysis of the hypothetical re-development is intended to provide the financial information required for developers to consider implementing GIBMP's and LID practices on their projects. Although LID is a relatively new concept, there is a sizeable body of literature related to stormwater management and GIBMP's. The key to implementing LID locally is to adapt practices to local climate, soils, topography, groundwater, vegetation, and stormwater management standards. The City's primary goal is to develop a hypothetical design based on working features that can be implemented at a particular site. A challenge for this project is to evaluate the requirements for incorporating the BMP/LID design

182

standards into the existing design and stormwater management criteria. In some instances, conventional standards and criteria may have to be modified to incorporate Green Infrastructure BMP's and LID standards.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Carter Hubbard Carter Hubbard is a water resources engineer with approximately 9 years of experience in hydraulics, hydrology, flood control, floodplain mapping, watershed master planning, erosion and sediment control, GIS development, permitting and engineering design projects. Carter lives in Nebraska and has worked on water resources projects in approximately 20 states throughout the U.S. In the past, Carter has served as Chair of the Nebraska Floodplain and Stormwater Managers Association and the Water Resources Technical Chair for the Nebraska Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

The Effects of Green Initiatives "Rain Gardens" on Water Quantity Issues

Kari Ann Mackenbach, CFM, Water Resources Specialist, URS Corporation Rusty Schmidt, Landscape Ecologist, URS Abstract

In coordination with a local watershed district, a potential research project is being proposed across the Eastern half of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro district to determine the effectiveness of green initiatives such as rain gardens, bioswales, and bioretention to reduce stormwater quantity and provide cost reductions for stormwater infrastructure. Most stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as these were developed to improve stormwater quality. However, emerging research in the Twin Cities area, and other parts of the country suggests that BMPs, if planned and located strategically, can also reduce stormwater run-off volumes and flow rates, possibly for more than just the smaller water quality storm events. Many metropolitan areas within the U.S. are facing costs of millions to billions of dollars to address combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and flooding issues. Consequently, there is growing interest in assessing the extent to which green infrastructure can be used to help reduce the amount of run-off generated by urban and suburban landscapes, and whether it can provide a cost effective means to reduce the magnitude of the investments needed for conventional means to address flooding and CSO issues. This presentation will include presenting the data of the study and the effectiveness of BMPs across scales of subwatersheds located within urban, suburban, and urban sprawl communities, and will use existing installed BMPs, retrofit BMPs and new development BMPs. The focus will be on the amount of water that is captured in each of these subwatersheds to determine the effectiveness of BMPs for reducing run-off rates for a variety of storm event sizes. The amount of water captured will be determined by monitoring the subwatershed's catch basin water intake and comparing that amount to either modeled predevelopment volumes or monitored volumes prior to BMP installation. The goal of this work is to help develop means to evaluate the technical and cost effectiveness of using green techniques to reduce the magnitude and investments needed for conventional stormwater control techniques.

183

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Kari Mackenbach,CFM Ms. Mackenbach is a water resource specialist and Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) who specializes in working with communities on multiple water resource and stormwater issues. Since 1993, Ms. Mackenbach has been involved with numerous floodplain and stormwater management projects. She has been intimately involved in the development of several local floodplain management programs, the implementation of advanced mitigation techniques, the development of stormwater management regulations, the implementation of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) such as Rain Gardens, watershed planning and the implementation of Phase II Stormwater Programs. Her facilitation experience and knowledge of federal, state and local programs has helped numerous communities attain higher standards in water quality and environmental management.

PROJECT GREEN (Green Valley Ecology, Environment, and Nature)

Curt Chandler, P.E., CFM, Land Development Manager, City of Henderson Albert J. Jankowiak, P.E., CFM, Public Works-Project Engineer II, City of Henderson Matt Baird, P.E., CFM, Assoc. Vice President, Manger ­ Water Resources Div., PBS&J Matt Wilkinson, P.E., CFM, Project Manager ­ Water Resources, PBS&J

Abstract

The purpose of this technical paper is to describe the planning and design processes used by the City of Henderson for Project GREEN. The goals of Project GREEN are to protect and restore the natural environment of a section of the Pittman Wash by planting native plants and removing invasive species, and to increase public awareness of the unique nature of the wash. It is expected that the project will have the additional benefits of reducing the amount of pollutants conveyed with the urban runoff, minimizing the erosion and sediment transport during storm events, reducing maintenance costs associated with man-made flood control systems, and protecting critical infrastructure located within the wash. This technical paper is relevant to the conference in that it describes the steps the City of Henderson has taken to restore the natural function and habitat of this section of the Pittman Wash. Project GREEN is also the first project that the City of Henderson has initiated under the principles and recommendations of preserving and utilizing natural features and habitat for multi-use functions, such as public trails and amenities for recreational use combined with floodplain function. These ties into the conference theme of Charting the Course: New Perspectives in Floodplain Management. There are several challenges that needed to be considered during the restoration process. The Pittman Wash is an integral part of the Clark County Regional Flood Control District's system. Also, the alignment of the main interceptor sanitary sewer line for the Green Valley Master Planned community is located in the bottom of the wash, as well as public trails and private homes along the banks. While upstream detention facilities built in conjunction with the rapid growth in the Las Vegas Valley have reduced the peak flow being conveyed within the wash, erosion during rain events is still a major concern. The reduced flows provided the opportunity to encourage public use and enjoyment of the wash environment within the over bank areas of the Pittman Wash. Project GREEN was initiated in early 2004 as a neighborhood project supported by the City of Henderson. The City worked with the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas to investigate the feasibility of Project GREEN. The investigation included hydraulic analyses of the wash in the vicinity of Project GREEN, plans of the trails and supporting infrastructure, a palette of plants native to the Las Vegas Valley to be used for habitat enhancement, and alternatives for erosion protection of the trail improvements at low water crossings. Construction on

184

Project GREEN started with an initial planting of 400 trees and construction of trails in the spring of 2005. Initial funding for the trail construction was provided by through a State of Nevada grant program. The scope of the project expanded due to a rain event on August 14, 2005 that produced a significant amount of storm water runoff in the Pittman Wash causing the failure of an interceptor sewer within the Wash resulting in a discharge of raw wastewater into the Wash. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) issued a Formal Enforcement Action Order that required the City to comply with certain conditions. In the mandatory response to NDEP the City agreed to prepare a sewer Vulnerability Evaluation Report (VER) for the portion of the sewer system located in the Pittman Wash between Green Valley Parkway and Arroyo Grande Boulevard to determine the vulnerability level of each segment of the sewer. The final VER was completed by PBS&J in April 2006 under the title: Pittman Wash Interceptor Sewer Vulnerability Evaluation Report. Building on the VER, the Pittman Wash Conceptual Design Report (PWCDR) provides design flow rates, hydraulic analyses, conceptual designs, cost estimates, associated with improvements in the wash intended to protect the sewer. The findings of the VER and PWCDR were incorporated with the Project GREEN plans to design flood control facilities that protect the sewer and restore the natural environment in the Wash. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Curt Chandler Curt Chandler, P.E., CFM has 35 years of experience in floodplain management and water resources engineering. Mr. Chandler received a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa. in 1971. He is a licensed professional engineer in Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada. He has worked for the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington, D.C., Wright Water Engineers in Denver and Tulsa, and has worked as Land Development Manager for the City of Henderson, Nevada for 18 years.

185

G-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Local Perspectives Moderator: James Meador, CFM, PBS&J Living on a Budget in the Path of Coastal Beauty and Hurricanes

Ron Geiger, Water Resources Manager, HDR Engineering Patrick Blandford, Project Manager, HDR Engineering Abstract

Lockwood Folly is a 500-acre gated coastal community in North Carolina comprised of approximately 550 home sites and an 18-hole golf course, Lockwood Folly Country Club. The residential community includes custom home lots, patio homes, common areas, roads, Club house, and marina. Nearly 300 homes have been constructed over the 17 years that this development has existed. Recent heavy rains associated with tropical storms have shown that the drainage system capacity to effectively shed storm water is inadequate. Runoff flows intertwine between the residential community and the country club. It is the goal of the community to have a stormwater management plan developed that will guide the community in implementing short- and long-term solutions to infrastructure deficiencies. The frequency of hurricane level storms have increased and thus has put a strain on this small community to deal with flood reduction and emergency management activities to maintain access and property values. The community sought out recommendations on operation and maintenance activities which will aid in drainage system performance to an acceptable level of protection, and prolong the life of the drainage system. This presentation will focus on improvements identified for flood control (both nuisance flooding and high intensity storm events). Water quality is also a concern and opportunities to include water quality enhancements were prioritized as flooding impacts are reduced. Lockwood Folly Property Owners Association Inc. (POA) has a goal of developing POA mini-projects performed by POA maintenance staff as well as identify opportunities to contract out to general contractors for larger more intensive improvements. Performance of drainage improvement work is currently considered to occur over a multiyear schedule, based on funding. HDR assisted the community through a cost-effective approach to examine how this coastal drainage system works in conjunction with over 20 ponds located throughout the community as it sits on the edge of Lockwood Folly River, and the Atlantic Ocean. An Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model was developed to simulate the complex movement of water from ponds to ponds, channels, culverts, and eventually to the adjacent marsh and sound. A level of protection was established to examine deficiencies in the system, and develop recommendations for short and long term improvements as the area transforms into a fully developed community. This presentation will highlight how communities with limited budgets for stormwater management can plan and protect homes and their community from frequent severe storms. Focus will also be on the unique tools that are used in a coastal environment for examining hydraulic performance of low lying lands. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Ronald A. Geiger Ronald A. Geiger, PE is Manager of Water Resources for HDR Engineering, leading the firm's efforts throughout the Carolinas. Mr. Geiger has over 24 years experience working with public clients in stormwater management, planning, design, and construction. As a team leader on projects dealing with various levels of complexity, he has developed the skills necessary to organize detail work plans for large-

186

scale implementation. Projects have included watershed assessments and master plans, flood control and reduction, stream restoration, community-wide infrastructure improvements, and stormwater program development. Mr. Geiger has experience in managing design and construction contracts ranging from $50,000 to $9,000,000. Mr. Geiger is a graduate of Ohio State University with a BS in Civil Engineering. He is a professional engineer registered in four states, and is active in ASFPM, ASCE, APWA, PENC, ACEC, and AWWA. He currently is the Environmental Committee Chair for ACECNC/PENC, and a past state president of ASCE, leading the development of North Carolina's first Infrastructure Report Card.

Implementation of Flood Damage Reduction in Western NC

Fred Royal, P.E., CFM, Water Resources Group Manager, Carter & Burgess Sandra Slayton, CFM, Environmental Scientist, Carter & Burgess Abstract

In September 2004, then again one week later, communities in Western North Carolina were devastated by flooding caused by back-to-back remnant hurricanes Frances and Ivan. Some of the hardest hit areas were the communities of Canton and Clyde (along the Pigeon River), the Biltmore Village area of Asheville (along the Swannanoa River) and Newland (along the North Toe River). These floods demonstrated the clear need to reduce the vulnerability of these communities to flood damages. The Hurricane Recover Act of 2005 directed funding for a comprehensive planning study, then implementation of recommended flood damage actions from that planning study. From December 2005 through August 2006, planning studies were conducted to identify and prioritize flood damage reduction projects for implementation in these communities, and implementation plans were written. In September 2006, expenditure of funding for implementation of these plans was approved by the State. This presentation will provide a description of how the recommendations of those planning studies were implemented in each of the four study communities. Total expenditures for implementation will be approximately $17 million. The following actions are being implemented in 2006 and beyond to aid in flood damage reduction in these communities: Biltmore Village Area of the City of Asheville: o A Watershed-wide program including modeling of potential economic losses from flood levels, watershed-wide survey of available lands to preserve as open space or flood storage, implementation of various flood damage reduction activities, and future conditions floodplain mapping. o Acquisition of 8 floodway parcels to provide significant flood damage reduction. o Emergency Response Plan for the Biltmore Village area including details specific to the area such as appropriate responses to flood warning, sandbagging, etc. o Removal of specific debris jams in the Swannanoa watershed. Town of Canton: o Create additional floodway open space and improve floodplain management to reduce damage potential. o Town-wide stormwater master plan and correction of existing stormwater infrastructure problems. o Upgrade of 5 Pigeon River stream gauges to improve flood warning. o Evaluate flood control potential of Lake Logan. o Provide damage reduction in the Bethel Community by protecting lands.

187

Town of Clyde o Removal of an abandoned bridge that obstructs the floodway. o Construction of off-channel flood storage in the floodway. o Town wide-stormwater master plan and correction of existing stormwater infrastructure problems. Town of Newland: o Examine feasibility of and possibly construct a flood by-pass channel. o Complete elevation certificates for buildings in the floodplain. o Town-wide stormwater master plan, stormwater management BMP retrofits, and preservation of important open space. o Floodproofing of the Town sewer pump station. o Relocation of a Town well currently located in the floodplain and flooded in 2004. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Fred Royal Fred Royal, PE, CFM is the Water Resources Group Manager in Carter & Burgess's Raleigh Office and has 13 years of experience as a civil engineer specializing in water resources applications. Mr. Royal has private and public sector experience in civil engineering applications of site design, land acquisition and development, hazard mitigation planning and FEMA projects, contract administration, public policy regulation, staffing and administration, public policy regulation, and project management.

Evaluation Post-Flood Risks ­ Northeastern Pennsylvania

Deepa Srinivasan, AICP, CFM, Senior Project Manager, Greenhorne & O'Mara Jon Janowitz, PE, Senior Hydraulic Engineer, FEMA Region III Hilary Stephens, Hazard Mitigation Planner, Greenhorne & O'Mara Abstract

In June 2006, a combination of storm systems moved through central Pennsylvania, resulting in flooding of a large part of northeastern part of the State, resulting in a Federal Disaster Declaration. Since then, the post-flood risk for this area has been evaluated and assessed. This presentation will focus on the techniques used to evaluate the post-flood risk in six Pennsylvania counties (Luzerne, Lackawanna, Wyoming, Susquehanna, Sullivan and Bradford). Features that will be highlighted include: process and methodology used in obtaining information and coordinating with the 243 affected communities affected in the 6-county area; means to gather data and understand the communities' concerns and observations regarding the flood; determination of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) performance; and importance of coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Protection, counties, and municipalities as a vital component to understanding the issues. The presentation will conclude with a prioritization table developed for each community for changes to the flood maps, based on information from post-flood coordination meetings and the evaluation of the hydrology and hydraulic changes.

188

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Deepa Srinivasan Deepa Srinivasan, AICP, CFM, serves as the Senior Project Manager for hazard mitigation and community planning projects at Greenhorne & O'Mara (G&O). She has prepared Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) 2000-compliant multi-hazard mitigation plans for Community Rating System (CRS) applications for communities throughout the country. Deepa has worked extensively on the National Flood Mitigation Data Collection Tool and identified National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)-insured repetitive loss properties through appropriate data analysis. She has used HAZUS-MH to conduct risk assessments and has authored several articles on HAZUS-MH for FEMA. A series of Deepa's articles was published in 2003 in magazines subscribed to by planners, engineers, GIS specialists, business persons, and policy/decision makers. She has prepared a series of case studies on safe rooms and shelters for communities in "Tornado Alley" that have built shelters in schools, critical facilities, daycare centers, hospitals, etc. Deepa holds a Master's degree in City and Regional Planning and a Bachelor's degree in Architecture.

189

G-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Flood Forecasting Moderator: Nikki Roberts, PE, FEMA Region III Flood Early Warning System (FEWS) for South West Scotland: a State-of-the Art Real Time Forecasting System.

Pascal Lardet, Ph.D., Halcrow Group Ltd. Michael Cranston, Ph.D., Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Micha Werner, Ph.D., Delft Hydraulics Abstract

FEWS Scotland is a real time flood forecasting and warning system developed in 2006 by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) which integrates four catchment models for the Clyde, Irvine, Kelvin and White Cart in South West Scotland and covers an area of more than 4000 km2 affected by fluvial and tidal flood risk. The paper explains how the real time system and catchment models were successfully delivered in less than 12 months by using an integrated and streamlined project delivery team involving SEPA, Delft Hydraulics and Halcrow. It illustrates how such an approach enables project risks to be effectively managed, programme to be met and how the technical requirements of model run time, being typically less than 5 minutes over a 48 hour period with forecast lead time of 3 to 6 hours, have all been achieved. SEPA and its two consultants worked together through an informal partnership approach with the participation of all team members to regular technical and management progress meetings. It was found that the integrated approach to jointly developing models and establishing the real time flood forecasting system greatly improved the process of establishing economical yet robust forecasting models. The catchment schematisation was developed jointly by Halcrow modellers and SEPA hydrologists, taking into account forecasting locations and required lead time, availability of real time data, knowledge of hydrological processes within the catchments and model speed requirements. SEPA required the ability to issue accurate forecasts with a 3-hour lead-time at over twenty five locations across the four catchments. The locations at which forecasts are required are important for the model developer. Detailed hydrodynamic models are required around these locations but less accurate models such as hydraulic routing models, are sufficient for other reaches. The models were developed using PDM (Probability Distribution Model) rainfall-runoff and Isis hydraulic software. PDM rainfall runoff is a software developed by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and Isis is a software developed by Halcrow and marketed by Wallingford Software. The models were integrated into FEWS the real time forecasting system developed by Delft Hydraulics and combined rainfall-runoff, flow routing and fully hydrodynamic models. Error correction techniques were applied at the PDM outflows and at several locations in the ISIS hydraulic models where real-time flow data from reliable gauging stations are available. Regular consultation with local authorities responsible for the management of the emergency response was key to the establishment of appropriate locations and levels for flood warnings and in the dissemination of the project. The paper explains the project implementation, provides an overview of the forecasting system and models schematisation and provides initial feedback on the operational use of the system from the launch of the new flood warning schemes in early 2007.

190

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Pascal Lardet Pascal Lardet has 16 years professional experience as an engineering hydrologist, with the last 7 years with Halcrow in Scotland. After he graduated in hydraulic engineering in Grenoble (France), he specialised during his PhD on rainfall runoff modelling and flood forecasting systems with application on steep Mediterranean catchments. He then carried out some post-doctoral studies on large catchment modelling and the impact of climate change at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. After 5 years back in France doing groundwater modelling, he returned to the UK in 1999 joining Halcrow in Glasgow and then Edinburgh, where he has worked mainly on flood risk management studies including the River Clyde Flood Management Strategy for Glasgow City Council. He is Halcrow market sector manager for water management and planning in Scotland and Ireland.

Statewide Meteorological Program For Flood Prediction and Data Collection

Kevin Houck, Senior Engineer, Colorado Water Conservation Board John Henz, Meteorologist, HDR Engineering Abstract

During the 2006 Flood Season (June 1st-October 31st, 2006), the CWCB Flood Section, in partnership with HDR Hydro-Met Services, began a comprehensive meteorological program to address flood hazards throughout the state. This program includes a daily statewide outlook with quantitative rainfall predictions and a detailed assessment of flood potential. All areas of the state are classified on a daily basis as No Flood Threat, Minor Flood Potential, Flood Watch, and Flood Warning. These outlooks are generally available once per day and are issued in the late morning. In addition, on Mondays and Fridays, a medium range outlook of 3-15 days is provided so that officials around the state can make necessary preparations in anticipation of potential problems. The targeted audience includes local floodplain administrators, emergency managers, and concerned citizens. While there was very little to report during the first three weeks of the program, the weather has become more active since that time, and this tool has proven invaluable in warning local officials of the flood threat for the day. In addition to this forecasting tool, this program provides a forensic tool which shows a Doppler reconstruction of rainfall from the previous day. This has been useful to the Flood Protection Staff in identifying areas of potentially high rainfall and areas of probable floods. This assists the Flood Protection Section in carrying out its duties of preparing for and responding to flood events. As the flood season progresses, there is no doubt that this program will continue to provide assistance to all levels in the prevention and/or mitigation of flood damages. The Flood Forecasting Program can be found at the following website. A link is provided from the CWCB Flood page. http://www.hdrweather.com/cwcb/cwcbinformation.htm

191

The reason this program is so useful is that Colorado is split into many regions by the National Weather Service, and four different forecasting centers provide predictions for various areas of the state. This leads to different forecasting styles, and creates problems for end users who are unsure of where to look for their weather forecasting products. This service provides interested users with a comprehensive daily and longrange forecast for the entire state of Colorado. It is also flood-focused, so more attention is paid to the actual flood threat, than for other non-flood meteorological events, which include wind, severe weather, and extreme temperatures, among others. 2006 was the first year of this service. Feedback from endusers has been almost unanimously positive, and this program will be continued for the 2007 Flood Season.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Kevin Houck Kevin Houck, PE, CFM, serves as a Senior Engineer for the Flood Protection Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, where he has worked since August 2003. His duties include coordination of the National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance Programs throughout Colorado, assistance with flood mapping studies, general technical assistance, and public outreach regarding the flood hazards in the state. Prior to his role at the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Kevin served as a consulting engineer for eight years in the Denver area. His work included hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and design, urban stream restoration, reservoir analysis and design, and transportation hydraulics. Kevin has a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from Washington State University and a master's degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Colorado ­ Denver. He is registered as a professional engineer in the states of Colorado, California, and Louisiana. He presently serves as the Vice-Chair for the Colorado Assocation of Stormwater and Floodplain Managers (CASFM). He also serves on the Board of Directors for the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM). He serves as the Arid Regions Committee Liaison for ASFPM. Kevin Houck, PE, CFM Senior Engineer Colorado Water Conservation Board, Flood Protection Section 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, CO 80203 Tel: (303) 866-4805 Fax: (303) 866-4474 Email: [email protected]

192

FEMA-NOAA Partnership: Complimenting NWS River Forecasts with Graphical Flood Severity Inundation Mapping

Douglas C. Marcy, Physical Scientist, NOAA NWS / Coastal Services Center Thomas Donaldson, WFO Program Manager, NWS Headquarters Abstract

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) provides flood forecast information in a variety of formats, including text products and hydrographs. Beginning in 2002, the NWS and NOAA's Coastal Services Center (CSC) worked to develop geographic information systems (GIS) based graphical flood severity inundation products to compliment traditional forecasts. GIS techniques were used along with the best available topographic data, and flood surface profiles generated from hydraulic models, to develop inundation maps. The maps depict the areal extent of NWS flood categories (minor, moderate, major), along with a range of water surface elevations at selected vertical intervals. The map products are called NWS flood severity inundation map libraries which will become part of the NWS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) in 2007. Future flood severity inundation map libraries will be generated based on NWS mapping guidelines. The guidelines were produced in 2006, by the CSC in cooperation with the consulting engineering firm Watershed Concepts. A major vehicle for the future creation of the map libraries will be the new partnership recently forged between NOAA and FEMA. At locations where FEMA Map Modernization projects coincide with NWS river forecast sites, collaboration will occur to include, where practicable, the NWS map libraries development as a part of the flood insurance project. This partnership was created when the two agencies recognized that they were conveying flood risk through flood inundation mapping, one for regulatory-legalinsurance purposes, and the other for real-time river flood warnings, both of which are for the protection of life and property. Through this partnership, there will be significant taxpayer savings by eliminating a duplication of effort. This presentation will describe: 1. the history that lead to these inundation maps products; 2. the basics of the NWS guidelines; 3. the connection of these products to the FEMA map modernization program; and 4. delivery of these products via the web. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Thomas Donaldson Experience: 2002 to present: WFO Program Manager Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services, National Weather Service Headquarters, Silver Spring, MD 1995 to 2002: Senior Hydrologist / Program Manager Lower Colorado River Authority Austin, TX 1989 to 1995: Hydrologist Flood Control District of Maricopa County Phoenix, AZ 1969 to 1982: Supervisory Hydrologist Fort Worth District, Corps of Engineers Fort Worth, TX Education: B.A., Mathematics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 1975

193

G-4 Going Coastal: After the Hurricanes Moderator: Dave Stein, NOAA Coastal Services Center Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast Mapping after the Hurricanes: Coordinating Federal, State and Local Resources to Produce DFIRMS

Stephen Altman, Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Zachary Toups, Project Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Jack Quarles, Senior Civil Engineer, FEMA Region VI Abstract

In August 2005, FEMA Region VI initiated study on several Gulf Coast counties and parishes as a part of the Map Modernization Program. This effort included a new storm surge analysis and new Digital FIRMs (DFIRMs) for the coastal areas. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made landfall, new intricacies arose and new data became available. Most importantly, the need for the DFIRMs increased substantially to regulate rebuilding in flood prone areas. Sixteen Louisiana coastal parishes, fifteen of which are disaster declared parishes, will have new parishwide DFIRM's with a new coastal analysis. The United States Army Corps of Engineers ­ New Orleans District (USACE-MVD) is preparing the storm surge analyses for Louisiana and Texas. Jefferson Parish and St. Bernard Parish are participating as Cooperating Technical Partners (CTPs) to complete studies in the respective parishes. Other contractors are performing coastal mapping in the remaining parishes. Also, the State of Louisiana participated as a CTP to produce LiDAR data for coastal Louisiana for use in DFIRM preparation. FEMA Region VI is also conducting an extensive outreach effort in Louisiana to help the public effectively use the new maps. Fifteen of the eighteen Texas Coastal Counties are currently being studied with FY06 Flood Map Modernization Funds. Fourteen of the counties will result in a new countywide DFIRM, while Harris County will add the results of the coastal analyses to the existing DFIRM as a Physical Map Revision (PMR). As a part of leveraging the investment in the coastal analysis, FEMA Region VI provided funding to a CTP (Texas Water Development Board, more specifically, the Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS)) to acquire LiDAR topographic data in twelve of the counties. In addition, mapping resulting from Hurricane Rita will be incorporated into the DFIRMs for Orange, Jefferson, Chambers, Harris, and Galveston Counties. FEMA Region VI will also implement outreach strategies similar to those developed as part of the Hurricane Katrina Recovery in relation to the DFIRM mapping for these counties.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Stephen Altman Mr. Stephen Altman is a project manager for Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Mr. Altman graduated from Bradley University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering in 1994. Mr. Altman is a CFM and is a registered Professional Engineer in Illinois, Nevada, and Texas. Prior to working for Baker, Mr. Altman worked for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and PBS&J. His primary responsibility is to manage Map Modernization Studies for FEMA Region VI.

194

Roadmap for a Seamless Elevation Surface: Case Study in the Gulf of Mexico

Lynne Dingerson, Remote Sensing Hazards Specialist, NOAA Coastal Services Center Keil Schmid, Project Leader, Topographic Change Mapping, NOAA Coastal Services Center Brian Hadley, Remote Sensing Specialist, NOAA Coastal Services Center Abstract

Digital elevation models (DEMs), representing the coastal topography and bathymetry of an area, are useful in floodplain management for predicting areas of flooding or inundation and identifying vulnerable areas within a community. The Roadmap for a Seamless Elevation Surface is a collection of information that brings elevation/depth data and technical process information together with data applications and current mapping and modeling efforts. This series of documents outlines available data resources, gaps in available data, existing tools and techniques for data integration, data applications and requirements, and topo/bathy work across NOAA offices. This suite of information portrays the state of resources in the Gulf of Mexico; however, many elements of this collection are applicable to other coastal areas as well. Essentially, the Roadmap serves to detail the resources, tools, and applications available to groups working with topography and bathymetry to create DEMs of land elevation to seafloor depths. The Roadmap also helps to identify priority areas for data collection, limitations of existing tools and techniques, and needs within the modeling and mapping communities.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Lindy Dingerson Lindy Dingerson is a Remote Sensing Hazards Specialist with Perot Systems Government Services on contract to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center in Charleston, SC. Her primary areas of interest include incorporating remote sensing data and technology into products designed to inform planning, mitigation, and response to hazard events.

Adjusting Historical High Water Mark Elevations

Elle L. Anderson, PE, CFM, Manager, Grounds Anderson, LLC Jacob P. Spenn, CFM, Project Manager, Harris County Flood Control District John S. Grounds, PhD, PE, CFM, D.WRE, Manager, Grounds Anderson, LLC Jeff Lindner, Harris County Flood Control District Abstract

For more than 150 years, Harris County, Texas has been suffering from flooding. Historical flood events and high water mark data have been collected for storms since 1949 in this area. High water mark elevations are based on existing benchmark data during that year. Over time those monuments have been releveled and in some cases destroyed. In order to maintain this valuable data, the Harris County Flood Control District has compiled many years of elevation adjustment data and created a countywide adjustment map. This effort created a conversion for each high water mark. This allowed for elevations to

195

be compared across storm events. A difference grid was developed for each elevation adjustment. This adjustment map is a very valuable tool for Harris County in their management and analysis of past, present and future flood events. This presentation will highlight ways to analyze historical high water mark data and eliminate erroneous points in your data as well as how this data was used to better prepare for future flood events. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Elle Lewis Anderson Elle Anderson is an owner of Grounds Anderson, LLC, a firm specializing in water resources and floodplain management in Houston, Texas. Ms. Anderson recently managed a team of over 30 firms for the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project, the largest and most technologically advanced Flood Insurance Study in the United States. During this project tasks ranged from the development of a county-wide benchmark control network consisting of over 1,500 monuments to the quality control review of over 1,800 square miles of LIDAR data to the careful orchestration of large public meetings. Ms. Anderson was born and raised in Miami, Florida. She is a graduate of Rice University where she received a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and held the #1 singles position on the Varsity Women's Tennis Team. She is currently a board member for the Bayou Preservation Association, the Chair TFMA's CFM Certification Committee, a Professional Engineer in the State of Texas and a Nationally Certified Floodplain Manager.

196

G-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Building Design ­ What Works and What Doesn't

Moderator: Dave Carlton, PE, ESA Adolfson, Water Resources

A Study of NFIP Repetitive Loss Properties In FEMA Region II

Anna Foley, EIT, CFM, Project Manager, URS Corporation Richard Franks, Ceng, MICE, CFM, Water Resources Engineer, URS Corporation Patt Griggs, FEMA Region II Abstract

Background Nationwide, the FEMA Mitigation Division has identified the mitigation of flooding hazards that result in repetitive losses to properties insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as a very high national priority. To this end, they initiated a study of repetitive loss properties (RLPs) in selected communities across the country. URS provided technical support to FEMA for the study under the Standby Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program (HMTAP) Contract with URS Group, Inc. (URS). Within FEMA Region II, nine communities in the states of New York and New Jersey were identified for inclusion in the study. The purpose of the Region II study was not only to provide participating communities with an up-to-date database of NFIP RLPs for both mitigation planning purposes and for local Community Rating System Program activities, but also to provide a screening level evaluation of several hazard mitigation options for many of the properties, arming local officials with the information necessary to make educated decisions regarding flood hazard mitigation measures for RLPs within their communities so that local resources can be more efficiently utilized and losses to life and property can be reduced. In the Region II Study communities, there are a total of 48,094 NFIP-insured properties. NFIPinsured losses to these properties since each community's entry into the NFIP total more than $127.2 million. Roughly 5.6 percent (2,719) of the total number of insured properties meet the FEMA definition of an RLP. RLPs contribute to just over 70 percent (approximately $89.4 million) of total claims paid in these communities. Why is this important? Looking at the Study area as a whole, 5.6 percent of the properties contribute to 70 percent of the losses. Available resources were not sufficient to study in detail each of the 2,719 RLPs in participating communities. To make the best use of available resources, Region II focused the Study on a subset of the total RLPs representing those properties with the most significant loss histories based on a review of NFIP claims data. It was found that roughly 60 percent of the total number of RLPs identified in the NFIP claims database had the most significant loss histories and, as a result, were the focus of the Region II Study. Key Findings of Assessment Of the 1,618 RLPs studied in detail, 22.7 percent have their lowest adjacent grade above the 10year water surface elevation and 72.6 percent have their first floors above the 10-year water surface elevation. In other words, while 1,618 of the total number of 2,719 RLPs that, based solely on claims history, appeared to be most at risk, it was found that after surveying grade and first-floor elevations at these sites, almost three in four properties would not see water over the first floor during a 10-year event and roughly one in four properties would not even see water on their property during a 10-year event. Thus, while claims data appeared to suggest that there may be numerous good candidates for some type of hazard mitigation project, risk-based analyses indicated otherwise. Of the 1,618 RLPs studied in detail, 3.7 percent have their lowest adjacent grade above the 100year water surface elevation. However, 35.4 percent have their first floors above the 100-year water surface

197

elevation. In other words, although more than 95 percent of the RLPs studied in detail would see water on their properties during a 100-year event, roughly 1 in 3 would not have water above their first floors. Only 21 percent (341) of the 1,618 RLPs studied in detail were found to have conditions on site that would be likely or possible to support at least one cost-effective hazard mitigation action. Average annual damages to this subset of properties are estimated to be more than $3.8 million. With the exception of structure acquisition, most hazard mitigation actions are typically not 100-percent effective in reducing future damages. If, for example, one were to assume that all mitigation actions were implemented and that they would reduce even 25 percent of average annual damages to this subset of RLPs, annual damages would be reduced by nearly $1 million. More structures were not found to be likely or possible to support a cost-effective hazard mitigation action because most of the properties studied in detail were at a relatively low risk. Despite the fact that so many properties meet the RLP definition, most are not particularly good candidates for cost-effective hazard mitigation projects. As described above, 72.6 percent of the 1,618 properties studied in detail would not have first-floor flooding during a 10-year event, and 35.4 percent would not have first-floor flooding during a 100-year event.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Anna Foley Ms. Foley has 10 years of experience in the public and private sectors, focusing primarily in the areas of hazard mitigation planning and projects, historical flood damage data collection, hydraulic modeling and economic analysis. Ms. Foley is a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM). She served as Project Manager for the City of Atlantic City, New Jersey, Hazard Mitigation Plan (the first FEMA-approved local hazard mitigation plan in the State of New Jersey) and is currently working with Nassau County, New York and Burlington County, New Jersey to prepare their respective multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans for each County and their towns, cities, and villages. In the past, she has also provided technical support to FEMA for plan reviews. Ms. Foley was also Project Manager on a recent FEMA Region II task order to study repetitive flood loss properties in six New Jersey and three New York communities; the study evaluated possible hazard mitigation solutions. Ms. Foley earned her B.S. in Environmental Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1995, and her EIT in February 1999 (New York State). Prior to coming to URS in January 2001, Ms. Foley spent approximately two years with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in the Hazardous Waste Remediation Division, and two years with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 2 Mitigation Division (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program). She is currently a member of the Association of State Floodplain Managers and the New Jersey Association of Floodplain Managers.

Flood-Resistant Design and Construction through ASCE-24 and The Building Code

John Ingargiola, Building Science Engineer, FEMA Christopher P. Jones, P.E., Christopher Jones & Associates Abstract

The International Building Code and the NFPA 5000 Building Code incorporate the Standard for FloodResistant Design and Construction (ASCE-24) by reference. Thus, the IBC and NFPA 5000 include flood provisions that are consistent with NFIP requirements for buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). However, the specific flood provisions that become part of the code will depend on the edition of ASCE-24 referenced by the code and the edition of the code adopted by a jurisdiction. This presentation

198

will discuss the flood provisions contained in the 1998 and 2005 editions of ASCE-24, and how the adopted building code affects the regulation of SFHA construction.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Ingargiola John Ingargiola is a Civil Engineer in the Building Sciences Section of the Risk Reduction Branch at FEMA's Mitigation Division Headquarters in Washington, DC. The Building Science Section is responsible for a broad range of mitigation activities that include; pre and post-disaster building sciences, working with model building code and standards-producing organizations; development of technical guidance documents related to hazard mitigation and coordination with various mitigation partners in the public and private sector. Mr. Ingargiola is the technical lead for conducting problem-focused studies; developing new and updated guidance for flood and high wind resistant design and construction; conducting national level building code monitoring activities including the development of disaster-resistant provisions for code adoption, and; participating on various codes and standards committees. He also manages FEMA's post-disaster Mitigation Assessment Team Building Performance studies, recently conducted for Hurricanes Charley, Ivan and Katrina. Before coming to FEMA in 1999, John served as a Building Code Official in Florida. Mr. Ingargiola holds a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Civil Engineering from the Cooper Union for Advancement of Science and Art.

Enhancements to the FEMA RSDE Software for Determining Substantial Damage

Don Glondys, CFM, Principal Risk Analyst, URS Corporation Lonnie Ward, Emergency Management Program Specialist, FEMA, Region IV John Ingargiola, Building Science Engineer, FEMA Abstract

In the aftermath of a disaster, there is a critical need to provide timely damage assessments so that structure owners can begin reconstruction. Communities participating in the NFIP are also required to make substantial damage determinations after any type of damage (flood, wind, fire, etc.) for compliance with the NFIP regulations. Structure owners with damages that exceed 50% of the pre-damage market value of the structure are required to either elevate the structure above the BFE or relocate the structure outside of the mapped floodplain. In order to help communities with these damage assessments, FEMA has developed a software solution called the Residential Substantial Damage Estimator (RSDE) program. The RSDE is a data collection tool for estimating building values and damage costs for single family and manufactured homes. The software and methodology allows users without a real estate, appraisal, building science, or cost estimation background to develop reasonable estimates of structure value, damage amounts, and repair costs. The RSDE tool was initially developed in the mid-1990's and enhanced periodically based on available advances in technology. As software programming capabilities have evolved, so has the use and requirements of the RSDE program. The current update of the RSDE software will move into the next

199

generation of existing technology and facilitate data collection and storage over wider geographic areas. By leveraging the capabilities of the internet, FEMA can provide a tool that can grow and be scalable to support future needs. The RSDE enhancements will allow users at the local level to go online and download the latest version of the RSDE tool while also having a choice of using either a local copy of the tool, local network, or connecting via the internet to a centrally located repository. A user could also opt to upload data at a later date to the repository by using the import/export function. Users will also gain the ability to attach and store multiple digital photographs of damaged structures and allow real time data input from multiple users. As part of the enhancements, a new, compatible tool for local officials, called the Non-residential Substantial Damage Estimator (NRSDE) program, will be developed and field tested for developing substantial damage determinations for non-residential structures. This presentation will discuss the basic concepts for substantial damage determinations based on the RSDE and NRSDE tool, provide guidance for community officials on preparing for and conducting large structure inventories, and covers the current enhancements to the software. The new NRSDE will be demonstrated and comments solicited from attendees prior to the official release of the Non-Residential program. The updated training materials for local officials, including a new video, will also be discussed. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Panelists Lonnie Ward (FEMA Region VI) ­ Emergency Management Program Specialist Mark Price (FEMA Region VI) ­ Natural Hazards Senior Program Specialist Jack Graham (FEMA Region VI) - Natural Hazards Program Specialist Donald Glondys, CFM (URS) ­ Corporate Lead for FEMA RSDE Point of Contact: Don Glondys (URS) Phone: 312-697-7237 (direct) Fax: 312-939-4198 Email: [email protected]

200

G-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Managing Information Moderator:Tim McCormick, PE, CFM, Dewberry New Orleans District US Army Corps of Engineers- Flood Plain Management System Call Log and Map Viewer (ESRI Version)

Greg Gagliano, IT/GIS Project Manager, HDR Engineering, Inc. Philip Meric, IT Project Manager, HDR Engineering, Inc. Abstract

HDR New Orleans just finished updating the Flood Plain Management System Call Log which is an integrated database with GIS component assisting the Flood Plain Management office at the New Orleans District with requests for flood zones, base flood elevations, and elevation studies. The system makes data entry, report retrieval, letter printing and location of the correct flood zone map, much quicker and easier. A data entry form was created for the initial entry of the customer's name and location information. All letters and mailing labels are then automatically generated from the initial information with no re-typing. Memorandums are automatically generated and sent through e-mail with no re-typing. Based on the physical location of the property collected during a phone call or written request, a map is retrieved and located on an area of interest based on lat/lon, street address, section-township range, FIRM community panel, etc. Key map layers include flood zones in Q3, digitized FIRM Panels, and DFIRM formats, base flood elevation points (verified), base flood elevation markers (non-verified), and base flood elevation lines. Aerial photography or USGS DRG quad maps can be turned on and off with a click of a button. Several reports, letters and printable maps for each record are automatically generated from the system customized to specific requests that are logged in the database. It is estimated by the Corps of Engineers that the automation capabilities of the FPMS system reduces labor hours by more than half.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Greg Gagliano Greg Gagliano is a GIS automation specialist that has over 7 years of programming and system development and 6 years of GIS experience. Most of his experience in the past 6 years has been working under contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers specializing in the area of custom GIS automation in both the desktop and web browser environments. Greg's projects focus on business process automation and incorporating GIS into information systems thus enabling information to be delivered to the end-user without requiring complex GIS training or a steep learning curve. He has been quoted saying: "If the system doesn't make your job easier, provide better information, and help you become more efficient then it's not worth developing." Greg holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Information Systems and Decision Sciences from Louisiana State University.

201

Portal Technology: A Collaborative Flood Study Review Tool

E. Ray Rush, P.E., FMSM Engineers Lisa Brandenburg, P.E., FMSM Engineers Abstract

FEMA Region V and FMSM Engineers have been successfully using a web portal to streamline information sharing and comment collection in the flood study process for nearly three years. At this time, over 40 counties have benefited from this unique approach. Use of this portal during the production, draft and preliminary flood study, and DFIRM production phases will be discussed. This portal serves as a flood study document repository, comment collection tool and preliminary map distribution point. The database-driven portal site uses a template-based system corresponding, organizing production documents by scoped tasks. A digital work map is provided by an interactive web-based map. This work map is available for review during the draft and preliminary phases of the studies. Not only does this map allow flood hazards to be viewed, it allows reviewers to submit geographically located comments. At the preliminary phase, FIRM panels in PDF format are available for download from the site. The portal requires a login that tailors the user experience by only displaying projects where a reviewer is involved. During the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Coordination Meeting among FEMA, FMSM and community officials, a demonstration is held to show the officials how to enter a comment on the interactive map. This meeting is held while the maps are still in draft status, so that the community officials' comments may be reviewed before the maps reach Preliminary status. Reviewing and commenting on the maps at this time can significantly reduce the number of appeals and protests. As soon as a comment is entered on the interactive map, it can be reviewed almost immediately. Once reviewed, a response to the comment is entered, which is visible to anyone using the interactive map for that county. This comment collection procedure has proven to be very useful to the Map Modernization process. Digitally collecting comments that are tied to a geographic location makes the process easier for everyone. That ease-of-use results in improved quantity and quality of comments. When viewing the interactive map, reviewers see points where others have made comments and any responses made. This reduces redundancy of comments and increases quality if there is more information to add. Improvements come from having a better means to enter comments and better accuracy from how they are being submitted. To further add value, recording location and categorizing comments can lead to identifying trends for improving overall study efforts. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: E. Ray Rush Job Title/Affiliation: Information Solutions Manager, FMSM Engineers Past Experience: Eleven years of experience as an engineer working in the areas of water resources, GIS, and software development. This includes projects for clients ranging from small cities to Federal departments. Primary interest is using multi-discipline knowledge and skills in developing innovative software applications that benefit data management activities. Responsibilities include project management, software architecture, and serves as leader of the Information Solutions team at FMSM Engineers. Educational Information: B.S. ­ Civil Engineering, University of Louisville 1996 Professional Memberships: American Society of Civil Engineers Kentucky Society of Professional Engineers

202

On-Screen Engineering and Floodplain Mapping Quality Control Review Using ArcMap

Kristen Martinenza, P.E., CFM, Senior Water Resources Engineer, PBS & J Laura Chap, P.E., CFM, Senior Water Resources Engineer, PBS & J Chris Moore, Senior Floodplain Scientist, PBS & J Abstract

PBS&J has developed an electronic approach to performing quality control reviews for the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). This approach was developed in response to FEMA's shift towards digital storage of data, as seen by the development of FEMA's Multi-Hazard Information Platform (MIP). The traditional approach to the quality control of engineering data (calculations, drawings, maps, reports and other project deliverables) is to review the data at each step before proceeding to subsequent steps or stages. Progressive review of data in this way helps to avoid unnecessary and costly missteps in the interim and final work products that depend on successive analyses. FEMA's Mapping Activity Statement (MAS) supports this approach. The MAS template for floodplain mapping quality control outlines the review activities necessary at each step of the mapping process, from hydrology to hydraulics to floodplain mapping. The paper/presentation demonstrates the approach to the on-screen review of the ArcMap shape files within and supported by the ArcMap framework, for each step in the floodplain mapping review process. The use of ArcMap features and tools to aid in the quality control process is discussed. The documentation of onscreen engineering and mapping review is illustrated, emphasizing the creation of a fixed electronic record using the attributed shape files.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Kristen Martinenza Ms. Martinenza is a Senior Engineer in the Floodplain Hazard Management Division at PBS&J. She has more than ten years experience performing riverine hydrology and hydraulic studies and in the past five years she has been actively involved in the National Flood Insurance Program performing technical and procedural reviews for flood insurance studies, physical map revisions and map revisions by letter. She holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering as well as a minor in Environmental Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University. She has been with PBS&J since 1996.

203

G-7 Floodplain Mapping: Flood Mapping ­ State Initiatives (I) Moderator: David M. Key, PE, CFM, Watershed Concepts North Carolina Map Maintenance Program Implementation (Restudies and Letters of Map Change)

Randy Mundt, Outreach Coordinator, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program John Dorman, Program Director/GTM Section Chief, North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Tara Aims, CFM, Project Manager, Dewberry Abstract

The State of North Carolina, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Cooperating Technical Community partnership initiative, has been designated as the nation's first Cooperating Technical State (CTS). As a CTS, the State has assumed primary ownership and responsibility of the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for all North Carolina communities. The NCFMP has developed a plan and program to assume responsibility for the transition of map maintenance from FEMA. Map maintenance consists primarily of two components: restudies and Letters of Map Change (LOMCs). For restudies, revisions to flood hazard data will be stream-based rather than community- or county-based. The seamless statewide mapping currently being produced will allow for updates to individual panels, DFIRM databases, and the associated countywide Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Reports. This process will be a cost-effective and efficient way to make necessary updates to flood hazard data as depicted on the DFIRMs. Once the initial countywide DFIRM database is created during the statewide mapping effort, an integrated process can be used for revisions ­ both restudies and LOMCs. In general, the map maintenance transition plan will have a 2-year cycle and consist of framework data changes, flood hazard data updates, and LOMC production. As part of this cycle, a county will be re-scoped two years after its first set of statewide DFIRM panels become effective. Scoping will take place to determine which flooding sources should be upgraded, revised, and/or newly studied. For LOMCs, the State of North Carolina has been delegated by FEMA to process MT-2 LOMCs (CLOMRs and LOMRs) for a pilot period of one year (July 1, 2006 ­ June 30, 2007). The State's transition plan includes full delegation of MT-2 processing beyond the pilot year and full delegation of MT-1 (LOMA, CLOMA, LOMR-F, CLOMR-F) processing. This presentation will overview the NCFMP map maintenance program implementation, provide a summary accomplishments and lessons learned, and discuss upcoming activities for FY07 and FY08. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Randy Mundt Randy Mundt has over twenty years of experience in land use planning at the state and local government levels. He is the Outreach Coordinator for the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. Randy is a CFM and AICP, and has a BS in Geography and did his graduate studies in City and Regional Planning at the Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. He has worked for the State of North Carolina for the past 5 years, the first four in the position as the State Hazard Mitigation Officer. Currently, Randy provides direction for coordinating the scoping and outreach of State's floodplain mapping with local jurisdictions

204

that are receiving updated DFIRMs and providing state support for all local floodplain management programs.

The Indiana Floodplain Mapping Initiative: An innovative approach to a state floodplain mapping program

David Knipe, P.E., CFM, Engineering Section Manager, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Mary Jo Mullen, P.E., Engineer, FEMA Region V Abstract

The State of Indiana, through the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, has been active with FEMA's floodplain mapping programs since their initiation in the 1970's and has been a "Managing State" Cooperating Technical Partner since 2004. The state has taken on the task of compiling the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for 83 of 92 Indiana counties through FEMA's Map Modernization initiative. This effort, known as the Indiana Floodplain Mapping Initiative, has produced a number of innovative approaches to producing flood studies and DFIRMs for the state. The main distinguishing feature of the Indiana Floodplain Mapping Initiative, as compared with other state floodplain mapping programs, is the use of Prison Enterprises Network (PEN) for all GIS services and the production of the DFIRM panels and GIS layers. In 2004, the Indiana DNR and PEN partners in a successful project to digitally convert all of the existing floodplain maps into a provisional DFIRM format, which has allowed the IDNR to use GIS effectively in subsequent aspects of the mapping program. Utilizing PEN presents some unique challenges with respect to map production, but results in a significant cost savings, allowing more funding to be directed towards additional studies that would not be possible otherwise. A good day's work provides positive focus and training for prisoners. Employment is a key to success--both in prison and after release. Another effort in Indiana that is not directly a part of the Indiana Floodplain Mapping Initiative, but has been a significant asset, is the Indiana statewide orthophotography program. This program has resulted in the acquisition of high resolution orthophotography for the entire state at a resolution of 1 foot pixel size (with some counties having 6 inch pixel photography). In addition, a medium resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was developed that is being utilized as a base condition in many counties for the development of floodplain features. While this DEM is not detailed enough to support detailed hydraulic modeling, additional processing can be utilized to develop high resolution DEM's, which have then been used for detailed hydraulic studies in support of the mapping initiative. A third effort that is unique to Indiana is the outreach efforts planned to inform Indiana residents of changes to the floodplain maps. Working with our county and community partners, the Indiana DNR plans a direct mailing to each parcel owner impacted by the changes to the floodplain mapping (either removal or addition). Indiana has also worked closely with Region V in developing the "Flood Hazard Open House" format for final meetings, and has a website under development (floodmaps.in.gov) as part of our outreach initiatives. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Knipe David Knipe is the Section Manager of the Central Basin Team in the Engineering Services Center of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water. As section manager, he is responsible for the

205

development and review of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for various floodplain management and dam safety applications. He also is leading the Division's program to modernize and update FEMA floodplain mapping for the state. He has been with the Division of Water since 1992. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Penn State University, a Master of Science in Civil Engineering degree from Purdue University and is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Indiana, and an ASFPM Certified Floodplain Manager.

Floodplain Mapping and Management in Georgia

Ban Saman Yousif, P.E., Flood Map Mod Program Manager, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Collis Brown, CFM, NFIP State Coordinator, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Michael DePue, P.E., CFM, Senior Program Manager,PBS&J Abstract

This paper describes a variety of floodplain mapping and management initiatives underway in Georgia. Georgia is a Cooperating Technical Partner and manages floodplain mapping from end-to-end. State staff both manage contractor production and produce map products. Tied in with aggressive mapping program, the State has initiated several floodplain management tactics, including model ordinances, and a substantial outreach program. This paper describes these individual efforts, as well as several proposed efforts and how they come together to form a holistic approach to floodplain mapping and management.

206

G-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Flood Mapping Sponsored By: Wallingford Software Moderator: David Fortune, Wallingford Software Real-time flood inundation forecasting and mapping for Hat Yai, Thailand

Ruth Clark, Senior Support Engineer, Wallingford Software (Asia) Ltd. Sompong Mahail, Project Manager, Water Development Consultants Ltd. Emma Tate, Senior Support Engineer, Wallingford Software (Asia) Ltd. Abstract

The city of Hat Yai lies in southern Thailand, on the Utaphao river. The Utaphao basin is of medium size, rising on the southern border of Thailand, flowing north through Hat Yai, where it has limited drainage capacity, and on to Songkhla Lake. The river frequently suffers from flash floods. Consequently, an existing flood forecasting system had been installed some years previously, but it was based on manually recorded data. When serious flooding hit Hat Yai in 1998, and again in 2000, over one hundred fatalities were recorded, and the economic damage to the region was extensive. The existing flood forecasting system had failed to forecast the flooding, highlighting the major weakness of such manually-based systems. Consequently, a comprehensive flood mitigation study of the Utaphao basin and Hat Yai city areas was commissioned by the Thai Royal Irrigation Department. Detailed flood mitigation modelling was undertaken to assess existing flood prone locations and possible future flood mitigation options, which included bypass channels and reservoir storage. One of the major recommendations of this project was the establishment of a real-time flood forecasting system. A programme of installation of fully automatic, telemetered field monitoring gauges, including rain gauges and river level gauges, was undertaken. A complete flood forecasting system, based around the existing hydrodynamic model, was configured. The main flood forecasting server for the project was installed at the project headquarters in Hat Yai, and was connected to the real-time telemetry data. Automated forecast simulations were set up. Client computers, linked to the server via dial-up connections, were set up at three remote stations ­ two within the basin and one in Bangkok. These enable basin managers to view forecast results, and trigger user forecasts themselves if desired. The system has been operational since June 2004 and has provided an efficient, accurate and effective system for the real-time management of flood flows in the Utaphao river basin.

207

National Flood Hazard Mapping for Scotland - An Innovative Approach

Tyrone Parkinson, Product Manager, HR Wallingford Ltd. David Ramsbottom, Technical Director ­ Flood Management, HR Wallingford Ltd. Caroline McGahey, Project Manager, HR Wallingford Ltd. Abstract

National-scale fluvial and coastal water level prediction and flood extent mapping is an essential planning tool for the management of flood risks through strategic planning, risk mapping, land-use development and management of flood defences. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has commissioned HR Wallingford to provide an innovative, semi-automated, robust approach for the prediction of flood hazard maps for Scotland. These include flood events with a 1.0%, 0.5% and 0.1% annual probability of occurrence in the absence of defences. The methodology is based on state of the art GIS scripts developed in-house for handling and processing large volumes of data. The hydraulic calculation incorporates the latest R&D research such as the new EA/Defra Conveyance Estimation System (CES) software, recent initiatives for the assessment of uncertainty and an independent study to establish the likelihood of the Digital Terrain Model (DTM) identifying the channel bed, through consideration of bankfull discharge. The InfoWorks RS (IWRS) 1D hydrodynamic modelling software is used for simulating the hydraulics and for flood spreading. The method is designed to readily incorporate existing more detailed hydraulic models, information on previous flooding and local flood defence data. This paper describes the complete flood mapping methodology

208

Thames Estuary 2100 - A robust systems-based approach to long term flood risk management planning in the Thames Estuary

Paul Sayers, Group Manager - Flood Management, HR Wallingford Ltd. David Ramsbottom, Technical Director ­ Flood Management, HR Wallingford Ltd. Ben Gouldy Abstract

The River Thames is one of the largest rivers in the UK. Its tidal limit is in west London, from where it runs east through London, forming an estuary that extends for 60 miles (100km) eastwards to the sea. The whole estuary is at risk of tidal flooding. The flood plain covers approximately 20% of London plus a large area of flood plain downstream, and if there were no flood defenses the frequency of tidal flooding would be about once in 10 years. The flood plain includes over a million people and their homes, commercial properties and businesses, and four World Heritage Sites including the Houses of Parliament and the Tower of London. The Thames is also a major estuary for birds - the fourth most important estuary in Europe for wildlife. It is therefore imperative that the tidal Thames is defended. The present system of defense on the tidal Thames consists of walls and embankments that run along both banks of the Thames all the way along the Thames estuary, starting from Teddington in the west and continuing to the sea in the east. Downstream from central London, the Thames Barrier provides a moveable flood barrier that keeps out the largest tides, closing when a very large tide occurs in the North Sea. The present system of assets, including the Thames barrier, was developed to a large degree in the 1960s, 70s and 80s in response to a major flood that occurred in 1953. Some of those assets are coming towards the end of their design lives. Although many of the components are made of stone and concrete, and therefore have a long design life, some defences consist of steel sheet pile walls. These, and other components including gates, are more likely to require replacement over the next 30 years. The other big driver for reviewing flood defenses is climate change. The sea level is definitely rising and fluvial flows are probably increasing, although this is still unclear. Of these two factors, the greater threat to London comes from future high tide levels. The UK's Environment Agency has set up a project called TE2100 (Thames Estuary 2100) to produce a flood risk management plan covering the next 100 years. As part of this study work packages have been undertaken that covered both estuary wide modelling and option analysis. The studies also cover the twelve tributaries that flow into the tidal Thames and a large number of smaller drainage systems and urban drainage systems, and the impact of change on these. This paper will discuss the methodology used to develop potential options for improving the defences, some of the complex and novel modelling techniques used to examine these options and report on the key findings to date.

209

G-9 International Aspects and Issues: A Big Picture Look at Flood Management Moderator: Jared Windhauser, CFM, URS Corporation Floodplain Management in France: From Theory to Practice

Prof. Dr. Philippe Gourbesville, University of Nice ­ Sophia Antipolis Abstract

The "inundation risk" ­ or "flood risk" - is now the first natural hazard in France, as well by the importance of associated damages as by the number of municipalities concerned ( more than 16,000 over a total of 36,000), the extension of the potential flooded areas (more than 20,000km2) and the number of citizens living in these areas (4,5 millions inhabitants). During the last 50 years the damages have increased quickly with the urbanization process associated to a higher vulnerability. In order to provide an efficient answer to the challenges and to the citizens exposed to flood events, an original insurance organisation has been setup at the national level. Since the middle of the 19th century, a warning organisation, managed by the central administration, has been setup in order to follow the main rivers on the French territory. Progressively the competencies have been concentrated in 52 centres dedicated to support the municipalities, the local authorities and to provide information to the citizens potentially concerned by floods. However, the efficiency of the disposal was limited due to a lack of coordination between the services. In 2002, a new organisation has been defined and is now entering in force progressively with the creation of a new flood warning system operated joining by the national meteorological service ­ Météo France ­ and the new hydrometeorological and flood forecasting service ­ Schapi. On the field, the operational management is operated at the department level under the supervision of the representative of state, in collaboration with the technical services of the municipalities and with the support of one of the local flood warning centres newly defined ­ 2002- and focused on one of the main catchments (22 identified in France). The paper gives a general overview about the situation of the flood management in France - legal context, insurance regulation, flood forecasting and management services, ... - and present some of practical experiences gained during the last extreme events observed in different cities. The flood of December 2003 on the Rhone river with some catastrophic consequences is also presented as a significant study case. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Prof. Dr. Philippe Gourbesville University of Nice ­ Sophia Antipolis 98, boulevard Edouard Herriot ­ 06000 Nice France T: +33 4 93 37 55 54 52/ 55 41 F: +33 4 93 37 54 30 @: [email protected]

210

Preparation of Odra River Flood Protection Project

Janusz Zaleski, Ph.D., President of the Board/Professor, Wroclaw University of Technology & Wroclaw Regional Development Agency Bogdan Nowak, Wroclaw Technical University Abstract

Over the last 20 years large floods have occurred in Europe, causing multi-billion losses. In the years 1991 and 1993 these were floods on the rivers Rhine, Odra (1997,1998), Vistula (2001), Tisa (Hungary, 2001), Elbe (Germany and Czech Republik, 2002), Dunabe (Romania, 2005), etc. In response to the floods in all these basins, the European Commission has lately prepared a Directive on Assessment and Management of Flood Risks. This is an important supplement to the Framework Water Directive (2000/60/EC) which sets up the framework for protection measures with regard to all types of waters within the Community. The proposed paper will present basic information about this important new European regulation and then it will illustrate how this directive is to be implemented in the Odra river international basin. The Odra river flows through the territories of three countries: the Czech Republic, Poland and Germany. The basin has app. 120.000 sq. kilometres. In 1997 south-western Poland was hit by a flood which, due to its scale and consequences, is called the thousand year flood. It claimed 54 human lives, 680,000 homes and 143,000 enterprises were affected by this flood, as well as 4,000 education, culture and health care institutions. Based on studies on flood damages, flood losses are estimated at approx. $3.5 billion. Also, loses on the Czech and German side were approximately 550 million and 330 million, respectively. The 1997 flood fully exposed the weaknesses of the existing flood protection system and a complete absence of a monitoring and flood warning system. After 8 years, a modern monitoring and warning system for flood protection in the Odra river basin was built using World Bank support and a new project to improve flood protection was prepared together with World Bank experts and the Council of Europe Bank. The important integration of all implemented and proposed measures is the integration of water management and spatial planning with nature protection and regional development under European Commission co-financed projects. The paper will present results of the ODRAREGION project completed in October 2006 which proposed the Programme for preventive flood protection in the Odra river basin with special attention to the Warta river subcatchment and the Szczecin Lagoon. Results of this project together with results of the German-led ODERRREGIO project (which will be completed in April 2007) establish a good basis for implementation of the new EC Flood Directive, common tri-national action in the basin and improvement of the Polish national flood protection programme "Odra River 2006" established in 2001 by the Polish Parliament. The implementation of the programme is scheduled for the years 20022016 with the funding of 2.5 billion - about 50% of funds is allocated for active and passive flood protection for years 2002-2016. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Janusz Zaleski Prof. Janusz Zaleski ­ President of Wroclaw Regional Development Agency and professor of Wroclaw Technical University. Governor of Wroclaw Province in years 1992 - 1998. In 1998 appointed as a Coordinator of the "Programme for the Oder 2006" which was adopted as a governmental program in 2000 and was signed by the President as an act in 2001. Prof. Zaleski is the Member of Presidium of The St eering Committee for the Programme. Worked in numerous institutions and initiatives on water management, water quality and flood protection (Chairman of The International Commission for Oder River Protection Against Pollution, 2000 ­ 2001; Chairman of the Polish Side of Polish ­ Brandenburg working group Oder 2006, 1998 - 2002). Chairman of the Polish side of Polish­ Czech­ German workgroup "Szczecin Initiative". Co-chairman of the Work Group for Spatial and Economical Development of the Oder River Region of the Committee of Spatial Management within The Polish- German Intergovernmental Commission for Regional and Border Cooperation.

211

The Risk of Flooding in the Netherlands

Marcel van der Doef, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Netherlands Herman van der Most, Delft Hydraulics, The Netherlands Abstract

"One day, with a sigh of relief, we will give up this country to the tempestuous sea". This was the prediction made by the civil engineer Van Veen, the spiritual father of the Dutch Delta Works. Until that time we want to be able to continue to live safely in this country protected against flooding. One hundred percent safety is neither feasible nor affordable. Therefore the cost of water defences has to be weighed against the level of safety they provide. For this reason a set of standards was included in the Water Defences Act. These standards are now based on the probability of certain water levels being exceeded, but new standards will be based on the probability of flooding and the consequences of flooding, generally referred to as the "flooding risk approach". A major research project Floris (FLOod RISk and safety in The Netherlands) is being carried out on the development of a flood risk approach. The probability of flooding is determined for the different dike ring areas in The Netherlands, taking into account the probabilities of failure of different dike sections and hydraulic structures. With respect to the consequences of flooding, the Floris project focuses on the economic damages and the number of casualties to be expected in case of flooding of a particular dike ring. One of the characteristics of the Floris project is the explicit and systematic attention to different types of uncertainties in assessing flood risk. The different starting-points adopted in dealing with uncertainty and its implementation in the calculation methods for the determination of flood risk are presented. Finally, the paper presents an outline on how to deal with uncertainties in the analysis of weak spots in a dike ring as well as in the cost benefit analysis of flood alleviation measures.

212

SESSION H THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 3:45 P.M. ­ 5:15 P.M.

H-1 No Adverse Impact (NAI): Mapping the NAI Floodplain Moderator: Leo Kreymborg, PBS&J

Map Modernization and the NFIP: Alabama's Use of Map Modernization to Enhance Knowledge of and Participation in the NFIP

Phillip Hicks, Project Engineer, Alabama Office of Water Resources Yong Sun Jung, EIT, CFM, Project Engineer, Watershed Concepts (RMC IV) Ken Meredith, State NFIP Coordinator, Alabama Office of Water Resources Rita Nichols, Map Mod Outreach Coordinator, Alabama Office of Water Resources Abstract

The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs' (ADECA) Office of Water Resources (OWR) Division is using the Map Modernization Program as a way to increase participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). OWR is accomplishing this through a partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV, and the National Service Provider (NSP) in Regional Management Center (RMC) IV. OWR believes that all communities can be better educated about the benefits of the NFIP. Through the map modernization process, OWR concentrates on educating the public to the benefits of the NFIP and the dangers associated with living in a floodplain and development in a floodplain. This is accomplished through community meetings, presentations, and general outreach. OWR attempts to educate communities at the beginning of the map modernization process. Outreach begins before the scoping meeting. OWR distributes a detailed mapping needs assessment to each community. Not only is this useful in project planning, but requiring community input maximizes benefits of the map modernization process and gives OWR an opportunity to introduce non-participating communities the NFIP at the beginning of the process. OWR continues education and awareness throughout the process, for both participating and nonparticipating communities. OWR has used the map modernization process to encourage local floodplain administrators to become Certified Floodplain Managers (CFM). These efforts are paying off. In fact, OWR currently has two statewide training classes, which are both full. OWR has also requested training of staff from both FEMA and RMC IV. OWR staff has completed FEMA courses in the NFIP and the Map Modernization Process. RMC IV has provided OWR several trainings including Letters of Map Change (LOMC), which are passed on to local officials. Both FEMA Region IV staff and RMC IV staff have also participated in local community discussions about the NFIP, at the request of OWR.

213

The end result is a big win for the State of Alabama. Map Modernization in Alabama is not only providing citizens with new maps, but it is also expanding the knowledge of the NFIP. The result is a more educated public, which understands the benefits of and risks associated with floodplain management.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Phillip Hicks (Biography) Phillip Hicks is an Environmental Engineer II with the Office of Water Resources Division of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs. He earned his Bachelors of Science in Geological Engineering from the University of Mississippi. Phillip has over 3 years of experience working and managing all aspects of the Map Modernization Process with a focus on H & H engineering and the post preliminary process (Map Adoption).

Model Maintenance in a NO ADVERSE IMPACT Community

Karl McArthur, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, PBS&J Jacob Spenn, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, Harris County Flood Control District Carl W. Woodward, P.E., CFM, Program Manager, PBS&J Abstract

The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) in association with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently completed a Flood Insurance Study for Harris County, Texas (Houston, Texas) known as the Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project (TSARP). TSARP resulted in the restudy of 22 major watersheds and over 2500 miles worth of channels using HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS. The models have recently been accepted by FEMA and the citizens, developers and engineers within the Houston, Texas area are actively using the models. The Houston area is one of the fastest growing communities in the nation with much of the area prone to flooding. The numbers of requests for the models and the resultant frequency of updates have inundated HCFCD and prompted the implementation of an automated system to manage the models and help to protect the citizens of Harris County from potential adverse impacts. A model maintenance group has been created by HCFCD to protect the investment made by the HCFCD and FEMA in the creation of the models and supporting data. The model maintenance group will update the HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS models and implement policy which will standardize the processes used keep the models valid, up to date, accurate and consistent into the future. The objective of the model maintenance is to standardize the process through which outside engineers will be able modify the models. The reasons for these modifications could range from development projects of varying size to hydraulic changes such as new bridges. With the standardization, new policies have been implemented to help in the review of the models and to protect the integrity of the models. Furthermore with standardization, the final product received by HCFCD from the engineer will be consistent and all new or modified hydrologic or hydraulic features will be consistent from one project or study to another. The goal is to provide consistent, up to date models and to ensure coordination between the end users, regulatory entities and all potentially conflicting studies. Internal polices have been defined and clarified to allow for quick, efficient decisions during the model review process. A web portal has been developed to supports user requests for modeling information, facilitate coordination between reviewers and engineers, and provide tools to facilitate the review of newly submitted modeling studies. Furthermore the web portal will help in the facilitation and coordination between overlapping

214

studies. Upon the entry of a new study or data request, the system will automatically send notification of the study to the appropriate regulatory entities and other users of the models in the area. This paper discusses the process which HCFCD has undertaken to ensure the standardization of models, implement appropriate policies to prevent adverse impacts, and develop tool to efficiently maintain the models into the future. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Karl McArthur Karl McArthur is a Senior Water Resources Engineer with PBS&J. Mr. McArthur graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a Bachelor of Science in Civil engineering in 1994 and from Texas A&M University with a Master of Science in Civil Engineering in 1996. He has been with PBS&J for over 10 years. Combined with his time with the U.S. Geological Survey, he has over 13 years of experience in water resources master planning and design, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and the application of GIS technology in water resources projects. His primary responsibilities include engineering analysis and design; project management; GIS applications; computer modeling; and plan, specification, and report preparation.

Can we make space for people and for water? ­ a framework for sustainable flood risk management.

Peter H. von Lany, Principal Consultant, Halcrow Group, Ltd. Richard Harpin, Senior Vice President ­ Water Business Group, Halcrow, Inc. Abstract

Flood risk management strategies are increasingly influenced by a desire to manage flood risks in a more sustainable way. This means not only reducing the threat to people and their property from flooding, but also seeking at the same time to deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits. This paper starts by outlining UK government policy for sustainable development. It considers approaches being developed by government authorities for identifying sustainable solutions for flood risk management, taking into account recently completed research into possible future levels of flood risk in the UK and sustainable responses to this risk. This paper also considers the approach advocated by a key nongovernment stakeholder (the Association of British Insurers) for managing flood risks in areas earmarked for development in order to make these new communities sustainable. At the heart of this problem lies the question - can we make space for people and for water? This paper identifies some of the challenges in developing sustainable solutions. These may have to take the form of portfolios of interventions, integrated to take advantage of synergies between different measures, but based on a resolution of trade-offs between conflicting objectives. It recognises that flood plain managers need to take a long view of flood risk management. By looking well ahead, we can consider how best we might adapt to changes, such as the potential threats of climate change. This means taking risk-based decisions in the face of uncertainty, accepting that longer term choices will be affected by the decisions we make today. The paper concludes by suggesting a framework within which sustainable solutions for flood risk management could be developed.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY:

215

Peter H von Lany Peter H von Lany is a Principal Consultant within the Halcrow Group, a 6000 strong international engineering and planning consultancy with 10 offices in the USA. He has over 25 years experience in water development projects internationally, and specialises in strategic planning and decision analysis. Peter has an MA (Cambridge) in Engineering, and an MSc (Lancaster) in Management Science. He has recently worked with the Environment Agency and water companies in England and Wales on methods for dealing with risk and uncertainty in water resource planning. He has provided expert advice on responses to flood risk to the UK Foresight Flood and Coastal Defence Project; and has helped develop guidelines for catchment flood risk management policy appraisal (for Defra and the Environment Agency in the UK), He is advising on developing a sustainable flood risk management strategy for the River Thames estuary. Peter has extensive overseas experience in river basin development, flood risk management, and water resources planning in a number of countries including Argentina, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, Hungary, UK and Russia. He is a member of several technical advisory and research project steering groups, and his research interests include strategic decision making (particularly in the face of risk and uncertainty), and the development of integrated plans for sustainable water resource development.

216

H-2 New Perspectives in Hurricanes and Recovery: Community Impact Moderator: Edie Vinson-Wright, CDM A Case Study of the Value of NFIP Data to Building Applications For HMGP Projects: Jefferson Parish LA

Jim McKay, Special Programs Manager, Solutient Michael Wesley ,CFM, Director of GIS, Solutient Abstract

In January of 2006, Jefferson Parish established a Program Management Office tasked with the pursuit of FEMA HMGP grant funding for the Parish. The office was staffed by Solutient, and immediately began a series of public outreach meetings. These meetings were designed to identify homeowners who would be eligible for a FEMA HMGP grant to mitigate future flood losses by elevating their home to FEMA's base flood elevation. The State of Louisiana allocated short term HMGP allocations to Jefferson Parish under both DR-1603 Hurricane Katrina and DR-1607 Hurricane Rita. This short term allocation totaled almost 50 million dollars, and provided for mitigation activities for severe repetitive loss homes under DR-1603 Katrina, and repetitive loss homes under DR-1607 Rita. The first step in targeting homeowners was to identify the SRL and RL properties in Jefferson Parish. There were almost 1000 SRL properties and about 7600 RL properties in the Parish. This task would have been all but impossible without partnerships with Jefferson Parish and The Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology (CHART) at the University of New Orleans (UNO) that allowed the team to access the most up to date NFIP data for Jefferson Parish. Without this data, the PMO would have had to rely on each homeowner knowing their NFIP status as a SRL or RL, being aware of their eligibility for FEMA HMGP grant funding, and the process by which homes would be included on a grant application. These partnerships allowed the PMO to have full access to the NFIP data thus allowing the team to contact each homeowner with information about the program. As a result an interested and motivated pool of homeowners was created. These homes were then included on an application to FEMA. This information served as the foundation to a tracking database that would eventually be used to document all contact with the homeowners, and track the progress of their application to FEMA. In addition to basic information, such as RL number and address, the NFIP data included claims history for each home. This data was essential to calculating the benefit cost on each structure, a FEMA requirement for grant approval. FEMA requires that all structures included on grant application be cost beneficial, which means it must have a BC of 1.0 or more. With the NFIP data, the PMO was able to identify at a very early stage which homes would meet this requirement. Thus, the outreach efforts of the PMO in Jefferson Parish were able to be targeted to SRL and RL properties which had a BC of 1.0 or more. Without the partnerships that enabled the sharing of NFIP data, the efforts of the PMO on behalf of the Parish would have been severely curtailed, and the successes that the Parish has enjoyed would have been impossible.

217

After the Wave-Recovery and Rebuilding Efforts in Sri Lanka after the Tsunami

Suresh Hettiarachchi, P.E., Water Resources Engineer, HDR Engineering Inc

On December 26th 2004, a 9.4 scale earthquake rocked the sea bed off the coast of Sumatra which caused a tsunami that spread disaster along the coasts of South East Asia. Sri Lanka was one of the worst hit with waves as high as 30-ft hitting the eastern and southeastern coasts of the island. The total devastation caused is impossible to measure but 36,000 people, including 12,000 children lost their lives in Sri Lanka along. More than a Million people in Sri Lanka were significantly affected. The relief effort following this catastrophe was amazing with the people of the country and the rest of the world responding immediately. As a developing nation, Sri Lanka was not prepared to respond to such a large disaster. The major thrust of the initial recovery efforts were lead by groups of people rather than an agency. Compassion, generosity, and leadership saw food, water, and medication reaching the affected areas within 48-hours of the tsunami. The continuing efforts to recover and rebuild from this disaster include building homes and re-establishing livelihoods, resurrecting the towns and cities that were washed away, infrastructure improvements, and environmental restoration and mitigation. International aid along with international agencies has worked, and continues to work on projects to help rebuild the coast of Sri Lanka. A lesser known, but a very successful part of the recovery and rebuilding effort are the small scale projects that have provided housing and livelihood rehabilitation in the smaller towns and villages. These projects have worked with the people to rebuild lives and provide means for sustainable growth and progress, while making maximum use of limited funds. Two years since the disaster happened, the people of Sri Lanka have made significant progress, with much more left to do. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Suresh Hettiarachchi Education BSc in Aerospace Engineering and MSc in Water Resources Engineering. Water Resources Engineer/Project Manager with HDR Engineering for 9 yrs Member of the MN Chapter of State Flood Plain Manager's Association Native of Sri Lanka. Was part of the initial relief effort in December of 2004 and January of 2005 while on vacation in Sri Lanka. Returned to Sri Lanka in February of 2005 for 8 weeks to volunteer on recovery and rebuilding projects. Also, was a member of a team from MN, sponsored by USAID, to provide technical support for water resources and environmental aspects of the rebuilding efforts. 6190 Golden Hills Drive Mpls, MN 55416 763-591-5480 [email protected]

218

Critical Facilities ­ An Overview of FEMA 54, Improving Critical Facility Safety for Floods and High Winds

Milagros Kennett, Architect/Project Manager Risk Management Series, FEMA Abstract

The workshop will be based on FEMA 543 and will provide guidelines for implementing a variety of mitigation measures to reduce the vulnerability to damage and disruption of operations during severe flooding events. FEMA 543 describes how to improve the performance of critical facilities in the case of floods. It was developed as a reference for those who have responsibilities in construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation of critical facilities. The performance of critical facilities (hospitals, shelters, OECs, and police and fire stations) during recent natural disasters has been quite poor, as documented in the aftermath of Hurricanes Ivan, Charley and Katrina. FEMA 543 stresses the fact that the functionality of critical facilities cannot be compromised by failures of building components and related infrastructure. It indicates that critical facilities need to remain operational in all-kinds of emergencies since their functions are significant components of the infrastructure upon which communities depend for their survival.

219

H-3 Flood Loss Mitigation: Mitigating Repetitive Loss Structure Moderator: Jennifer Marcy, CFM, PBS&J Flood Mitigation in Dekalb County, Georgia: Planning, FEMA Grants, Project Implementation, Ranking Home Acquisition Candidates, & CRS Re-Analysis

Duncan Hastie, P.E., Project Manager, Dewberry Terrance Simpkins, Engineer, DeKalb County Roads & Drainage Division Willie Greene, Assistant Director, DeKalb County Roads & Drainage Division Abstract

Dekalb County, Georgia is an urbanized County with 700,000 residents in the metropolitan Atlanta area. With 14,000 buildings in the floodplain, including a couple thousand flood insurance policy holders, Dekalb has become very active in the all aspects of flood mitigation over the last few years. This case study presents the challenges and successes of Dekalb as they have undertaken a variety of initiatives intended to reduce exposure to flooding events both small and large, with an ancillary benefit of reducing the County to at least a Class 7 community in the CRS program. The presentation will provide an overview of the County's successful PDM Planning Process, and the resultant $10 million worth of 2005 PDM Grants for a variety of flood mitigation projects including highlights of the design of a flood control detention pond and the unique challenges of navigating a PDM grant-funded buyout of multi-family residential buildings with condominium ownership. Also discussed will be the County's formal Home Buyout Ranking program, designed to evaluate and rank floodprone homes across the County to determine which will be included in Mitigation Grant applications where limited funding dictates only a fraction of interested property owners can be considered in any given year. A brief discussion of the importance of the County's recently implemented Stormwater Utility Enterprise Fund as a source of matching funds for FEMA grants is included. All County mitigation efforts, along with a recently launched Countywide Flood Study program funded entirely by the County, are currently the basis for the County having it's CRS program status re-evaluated. These recent and ongoing activities will enable Dekalb to achieve designation as a CRS Level 7 community in early 2007, resulting in a reduction in flood insurance premiums for thousands of covered County residents, and further improvements in the CRS rating system are expected as the County continues and expands it floodplain management and mitigation efforts.

220

Navigate Through Severe Loss Trouble Water ­ Using Local Mitigation Alternatives (Flood Hazard Mitigation System)

Mark Price1, Senior Specialist, FEMA Region VI ChiChung Chang Ph.D. CFM, Proj Director and Water Resources Manager, URS Corp Ross Richardson1 CFM, Section Chief, FEMA Region VI

2

Abstract

FEMA Mitigation has identified the mitigation of flooding hazards that result in repetitive losses to properties insured under the National Flood Insurance Program as a high national priority. Within FEMA Region VI, there are over 11,000 repetitive loss properties on the National List. After Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, within the states of Louisiana and Texas, approximately 4,000 repetitive loss properties have been classified as confirmed severe repetitive loss properties or pending severe repetitive loss properties. These severe repetitive loss properties have significant financial impacts on the NFIP. When devising mitigation strategies for reducing or eliminating flooding damages, one must first consider a couple of issues. Because not all flooding events are alike, there are several different flooding characteristics which must be taken into account. The type and condition of property structure is also important for selecting the kinds of mitigation alternatives that are best suited for the particular situation. Therefore, in order to assist local governmental entities to more effectively reduce and address the issue of the severe repetitive loss properties for mitigation, FEMA Region VI and URS with the assistance of FEMA Headquarters have developed a streamlined methodology (Flood Hazard Mitigation System). The flood mitigation system consists of severe repetitive loss properties data collection using National Tool, portfolios construction, mitigation strategy development, mitigation alternatives analysis, community participation and mitigation implementation. The focus of this presentation is twofold. The first part of the presentation will discuss the development of the flood mitigation system. The second part of the presentation will address the experience learned by applying the system through the data collection, those of reviewing individual portfolios, flood insurance matters, evaluating potential mitigation strategies and efforts in partnering FEMA, state and local community in developing mitigation projects. 1:FEMA Region VI 2: URS Corp. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mark Price Mark Price is a native Texan, who has worked for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for over 13-years. He is currently a Senior Natural Hazards Program Specialist working at the FEMA Region VI office in Denton, TX. He is currently involved in many aspects of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to include compliance, education and training, and repetitive loss. Mark has recently come back to the NFIP from working in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Mark has also served in the National Preparedness Division, and worked numerous disasters in and outside of the Region.

221

Decision Tool for Flood Mitigation Method for Rep Loss Properties

Norma Jean Mattei, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Orleans Emre Ergen, Research Assistant, University of New Orleans Abstract

Jefferson Parish is one of the civil parishes in the metropolitan New Orleans area that was impacted by Hurricane Katrina flooding. However, flooding in Jefferson Parish was not uncommon prior to Katrina as the area is mostly below sea level and significant rainfall can overwhelm its unique drainage system. Jefferson parish has the unfortunate distinction of having the second largest number of repetitive loss properties within its boundaries. After a major flood occurred in 1996, the US Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA), via the fiscal 1996 Energy Water Development Appropriations Act (Section 108) and the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Section 533) in order to improve drainage and mitigate flood damage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany Parishes. The cost of the initial authorization was estimated at $413 million for the Jefferson Parish work. This work included improvements to 24 drainage canals, additional pump capacity at 4 pump stations and two new pump stations. Post-authorization projects include work of $92 million. The Jefferson Parish project was broken into about 50 contracts, some of which are completed, some are under construction and some are in design and awaiting funding. After Katrina flooding, home owners and the parish floodplain manager must decide on the most appropriate flood mitigation for each home. The question: has completed SELA projects or will future SELA projects mitigate flooding, or should the home owner and parish look at alternative mitigation methods such as acquisition, elevation, demo-rebuild, wet flood proofing, or dry flood proofing. This paper will discuss a decision-making tool that can be used in order to assess the impact of SELA structural drainage projects on repetitive flood loss properties in Jefferson Parish. Rep loss properties were ranked as to the likelihood that structural mitigation (SELA) projects effectively have or will shortly prevent flooding from a 100 year storm. This will allow the parish to focus educational outreach to those home owners least likely to be mitigated through structural measures. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Norma Jean Mattei Norma Jean Mattei is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of New Orleans. She received her Bachelor Degree in 1982 and her PhD in 1994, both in Civil Engineering at Tulane University. She practiced as a structural engineer in the metro New Orleans area during the time between her undergraduate and graduate education. A licensed Professional Engineer in Louisiana, she designed several bridges, surface drainage systems, banks, schools, jails, interchanges and rail yards during that time. She has been the President of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) New Orleans Branch and President of ASCE Louisiana Section. She is presently past President of the Section and a governor of ASCE Region 5. She is an associate of UNO's Center for Hazards Assessment and Reduction Technology (CHART). Her past research interests include flood mitigation, decision tools, residual stress measurement using laser interferometry, and recycling spent blast materials in hot mix asphalt. Currently she has been involved with flood mitigation research in the metropolitan New Orleans area for several years, as well as research on a precast roadway panel that can be leveled in place if its foundation soils have subsided.

222

H-4 Going Coastal: Using Technology to Access Coastal Risk (II) Moderator: Scott Stone, CDM FIXING COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD ZONES: ESTABLISHING THE COASTAL AZONE vs REDEFINING THE V-ZONE WAVE

Spencer M. Rogers, Jr., Coastal Processes and Building Construction Specialist, North Carolina Sea Grant Christopher P. Jones, P.E., Christopher Jones & Associates Abstract

Several post-hurricane damage studies have noted that depth damage relationships in A-zones adjacent to coastal V-zones are similar to V-zone damage rather than the far less severe A-zone damage relationships developed from riverine and other inland flooding observations. Several design guides including Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55), Flood Resistant Design and Construction (ASCE 24-05) and the postKatrina Advisory Base Flood Maps for the Mississippi coast have identified Coastal A-zones as a higher risk flood zone and recommended that V-zone construction standards be applied. This presentation will identify one cause of observed coastal building damage as the definition of the V-zone based on the 3-ft breaking wave height. Using theoretical analysis and full-scale wave tank tests conducted to design breakaway walls, a more appropriate wave height definition would be the 1.5-ft wave. The presentation will discuss two options for addressing this issue: adopting the Coastal A-Zone or redefining the V-zone. In addition, options to redefine both zones by erosion and wave hazards will be discussed.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Spencer Rogers Spencer Rogers Job title: Coastal Engineering Specialist Center for Marine Science & University of North Carolina -Wilmington Dept. of Civil Engineering North Carolina State University University of Florida, Gainesville, M. S. in Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, 1975. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, B. S. in Engineering Science, 1973. Job title since 1978: Coastal Engineering Specialist for North Carolina Sea Grant. Located at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington Center for Marine Science. Specializing in shoreline processes, erosion, storm-resistant building construction, coastal management, and marine construction. Recent work includes detailed damage surveys of coastal buildings with FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. NORTH CAROLINA SEA GRANT EXTENSION PROGRAM 5600 Marvin Moss Lane Telephone: 910/962-2491 · Fax: 910/962-2410 Wilmington, N.C. 28409 [email protected]

223

Preparing for the Future with Wide Coastal Zones and Space for Rivers, the new Dutch Approach

M. van Ledden PhD4, Haskoning, Inc. (International) Gert Jan Akkerman Msc, R.O.T. , Royal Haskoning Rene Zijlstra Msc, Haskoning, Inc. Abstract

Historically, Dutch flood risk management has practically been synonymous with raising and strengthening of flood defences as a reaction to critical situations or flooding events. Climate change and land subsidence will lead to an even stronger continuation of this cycle in the near future. Since the 1990s, Dutch water managers started to realize that this way of flood management would not be sustainable in the longer term. They also realized that even when the failure probability of the defences might be maintained, the consequences of flooding would strongly increase in future due to increased population pressure and increased economical values to be protected. The answer to break this cycle is sought in a two-fold approach: 1. Creation of wide coastal defence zones in coastal areas; 2. Creating more space to inland rivers. Royal Haskoning is involved in many aspects of both approaches. The creation of wide coastal defence zones implies the abandonment of single-line defence systems in favor of wide zones that can cope with (occasional) salt water from the sea and that provide safety to the hinterland with secondary defences or natural higher grounds. Within this concept, a European research program has been set-up, ComCoast, in which a large scope of research items related to this concept are being investigated. As a part of this program, unique field tests will be carried out in the first half of 2007 on a true sea dyke, focusing on the strength of a heavily overtopped dyke. In addition, a grass reinforcement system, that has already been installed, will be tested on true scale as well for comparison. At the conference the results of these tests, that will be carried out under the supervision of Royal Haskoning, can be communicated. The outcome of these tests are considered of high practical importance for coastal flood prone areas. The creation of more space to the rivers, is a spatial answer to the increased flood levels to be coped with. After the high waters of 1993 and 1995 the Dutch government decided to increase the design discharge of the Dutch Rhine branches. Coping with safety levels in coherence with the promotion of nature restoration, are the key objectives in the "Space for Rivers" Project. The safety objective here is to increase the discharge capacity of the river branches without increasing the present design water levels. "Staatsbosbeheer" (the Dutch National Forest Reserve), owner of large areas of the river floodplains, proposed a new interconnecting river "Lingewaarden" to be built in the low lying central part of the Netherlands. In relation with the re-opening of the old Rhine branch "Rijnstrangen", the total "Lingewaarden-Rijnstrangen" system provides a controllable shortcut between different Rhine river branches. Royal Haskoning was asked to underpin this plan from a river engineering point of view in 2005 and 2006. To this, we investigated the feasible concepts of this river system and proposed different arrangements and controls as to optimize the hydraulic behavior with a 1d-modelling study. In addition to significant lowering of flood water levels, the new "Rijnstrangen - Lingewaarden" system can fulfill a crucial role in a sustainable re-distribution of the discharge in the Rhine branches now and in the far future. Whithin this Corresponding author: Haskoning Inc., 1 Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1930, Metairie, New Orleans, LA 70001, Email: [email protected]

4

224

scope, we also carried out an uncertainty analysis with respect to (non-controlled) changes in the design discharge distribution in the Rhine branches due to introduction of new bifurcations and confluences. The study shows that the uncertainty in the design discharge slightly increases, but can practically be neglected with respect to other uncertainties. Finally, we investigated the optimal combination of river measures in terms of costs for the new river system lay-out for different design discharges. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Gert Jan Akkerman Gert Jan Akkerman (born 1948) graduated at the Faculty of Civil Engineering at Delft University of Technology in 1974. He started his career at Delft Hydraulics , where he worked for 25 years. In 1999 he joined Royal Haskoning as a senior consultant. He has been involved in numerous research and advisory projects, as expert as well as teamleader. His field of experience covers a broad scope of coastal and river projects, abroad and in the Netherlands. In addition, he has been a lecturer at Unesco-IHE for 9 years. At Royal Haskoning he contributes to a wide scope of projects and is actively involved in many new initiatives and ideas. He is an acknowledged editor and author of reports of national and international interest.

Prioritization Factors for Coastal Scoping Studies in Region 1

Timothy S. Hillier, P.E., CFM 5, Project Engineer, Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc. Amol Daxikar6, GIS Specialist/Project Manager, CDM Joseph F. Marrone, P.E.7, Project Manager, Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc. Abstract

Project Scoping is the process during which a community's mapping needs are evaluated, available data and information is identified, and alternatives for updating the community's Flood Insurance Rate Maps are developed. During scoping, the study contractor establishes a mapping priority order for flooding sources based on measurable criteria (e.g. Population Density, Age of Current Study, Changes in Land Development, etc.). Due to the nature of coastal processes and coastal mapping requirements, Project Scoping in communities with an open coastline must incorporate a separate coastal-specific set of criteria. The understanding of coastal processes and evaluation methodologies for coastal flood insurance studies has undergone substantial improvements over the last 25 years. However, many of the coastal communities in Region I have effective Flood Insurance Studies which were completed in the early- to mid-1980s. For example, the definition of a Primary Frontal Dune was not established until 1988 and as recently as 2005 the methodology for determining wave runup was revised. As such, the age of the coastal study is therefore a significant factor when prioritizing mapping updates in coastal areas. The beaches in Region I provide a wide variety of geomorphic features. While rocky shorelines, prevalent in some northern areas, are relatively stable, the region also has highly dynamic shoreline areas where erosion and accretion processes predominate. The region also has unique coastal features such as cobble beaches and dunes, coastal bluffs of various base materials, and extensive barrier beach and marsh systems. As a result, the mapped shoreline on the effective FIRM needs to be carefully compared with existing conditions when prioritizing updates and the geomorphic characteristics of the coast must be considered in setting priorities. Region I coastal areas have also been subject to significant development pressure within the past 25 years. Further, urban marine areas which were once zoned for commercial/industrial uses have been converted to

5 6

Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc., Plymouth, MA 02360 CDM, Inc., Cambridge, MA 7 Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc., Trumbull, CT 06611

225

residential uses. Because of the ongoing, high rate of development and change in coastal areas, the rate and type of development takes on specific interest for coastal scoping. Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc. (OCC) and CDM, Inc. have worked closely with communities, state NFIP coordinators, and FEMA Region I to sufficiently identify the factors which may affect prioritization of coastal mapping updates. The OCC/CDM team has developed a prioritization methodology, based upon the CDM ranking criteria for streams, to create well-balanced priorities for coastal mapping. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Timothy Hillier Mr. Hillier has been involved with the National Flood Insurance Project for the past 5 years; first as a FEMA Map Coordination Contractor and more recently as a Study Contractor. As a Project Engineer at OCC he is responsible for the coastal analysis related to the ongoing updates of Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps throughout Region I. His previous experiences include coastal hazard identification along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Mr. Hillier has participated in the efforts to update the Guidelines and Specification for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners for the Pacific Coast and has taken part in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Coastal Hazards Commission. Mr. Hillier has a B.S. in Biological Resources Engineering from the University of Maryland and an M.S. in Ocean Engineering from the University of Rhode Island. He is a Professional Engineer and a Certified Floodplain Manager.

226

H-5 National Flood Insurance Program Issues: Flood Insurance Issues

Moderator: Paul Osman, CFM, Illinois Dept of Natural Resources

Retaining Flood Policies: The Role of a Floodplain Manager

Mary Jo Vrem, Program Manger, Floodsmart NFIP Marketing Campaign, FEMA Mary Margaret Connell, Account Supervisor, JWT Amy Avery Abstract

How long do property owners in your community maintain their flood insurance protection once they have made the smart decision to buy a policy? When new flood maps are issued, do residents coming out of an SFHA understand how to easily maintain their coverage and save money ­ as an alternative to letting their policy lapse? Do individuals in low- to moderate-risk areas whose flood zone designation has not recently changed clearly understand the benefits of continuing their coverage and the risks associated with not renewing it? How well consumers maintain their flood coverage is a function of how much they know about their level of risk and the value of protection. As a floodplain manager, you are viewed as an expert on flooding, and what you have to say matters. You can help keep the residents of your community safe and protected, not only by stressing the need to obtain flood insurance, but also by driving home the real need to keep it. This session will draw upon retention research and targeted policy data collected by the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) FloodSmart team to examine common causes for policy turnover and offer strategies, messages and techniques to actively combat this trend. Case studies will be used to examine the effectiveness of outreach and communication in reducing year-one turnover and preserving policies in force. A toolkit of information and outreach materials will be provided to help you advocate for continued coverage...even when area levees are re-examined and local flood maps change. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Mary Jo Vrem Mary Jo Vrem is the project manager for the NFIP FloodSmart Program. She joined FEMA in 1994 and worked in the Office of Congressional Affairs prior to moving to the National Flood Insurance Program. Before coming to FEMA she spent 11 years in the United States Senate, serving as professional staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee.

227

Historical Maps Available on the FEMA Map Service Center Website

J. Christopher Eckhart, CFM1, Quality Control and Deputy Project Manager, FEMA Map Service Center/ZAI Claire Drury2, MSC COTR, FEMA Abstract

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Map Service Center (MSC) is the official government distribution center for digital and paper flood hazard mapping products. The MSC website, which provides easy access to the digital products and enables the creation of FIRMettes, is seen as a major success of the Map Modernization program. As part of the MSC's continuing efforts to fulfill the needs of the floodplain management and mapping communities with quick and reliable service and easy access to information, the MSC is finishing a two year project that will make historical Flood Hazard Boundary and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FHBMs and FIRMs) available on the MSC website (http://msc.fema.gov). With the completion of this project floodplain managers; insurance, business, and technical professionals; as well as the general public will have easy access to all FHBMs and FIRMs issued by FEMA in administering the National Flood Insurance Program. This project will also result in an enhancement to the MSC website, which will permit the viewing of both the current effective and historic FIRMs. This enhancement is being made as a result of feedback from the floodplain management community. This presentation will provide an overview of the MSC's efforts for collecting, cataloging, and scanning the historical mapping products, as well as demonstrate how these products are made available through the MSC website. This presentation will interest federal, state, and local floodplain managers; flood hazard mapping partners; and insurance, business, and technical professionals who rely on quick and reliable access to mapping products in the performance of their jobs. 1 MSC Deputy Project Manager, ZAI, 6730 Santa Barbara Court, Elkridge, MD 21075 2 MSC COTR, FEMA, Federal Center Plaza, 500 C. Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20472

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: J. Christopher Eckhart, CFM Chris Eckhart is the Quality Control and Deputy Project Manager for ZAI, which is under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to administer the operations of its Map Service Center. ZAI is an information management consulting firm with more than 300 employees. Mr. Eckhart has nearly nine years of experience working with various aspects of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, including the Letter of Map Change process, stakeholder outreach, and procedure and policy development. In his current role, Mr. Eckhart is responsible for overseeing various daily operational activities of the MSC, including quality management.

228

eLOMA ­ The First Year and Future Plans

David Mummert, eLOMA Coordinator, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Dan Natale, CFM, National LOMA Manager, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Mike Godesky, Project Engineer, FEMA Headquarters Abstract

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) launched eLOMA in June, 2006 to provide licensed land surveyors and professional engineers with an internet-based system to process simple Letter of Map Amendments (LOMA) requests. The eLOMA tool is available to any licensed professional who registers through FEMA's Mapping Information Platform (MIP), which is located online at http://hazards.fema.gov. This presentation will provide a summary of eLOMA usage during its first year, common issues that kept some eLOMA Audits from being approved, a discussion of feedback from users, and plans for future enhancements or expansion.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: David Mummert David Mummert has 5 years of National Flood Insurance Program experience with Baker Engineering in the MT-1 (LOMA) Group. Most recently he has been the Subject Matter Expert developing the LOMA processing and eLOMA applications for FEMA's Mapping Information Platform (MIP) website. Dan Natale is a graduate of Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania with a degree in Geography with a specialization in Environment Planning. He has been with Michael Baker Jr. Inc. for 8 years, working as a contractor to FEMA on the National Flood Insurance Program. He currently manages all MT-1 (LOMAs) work nationwide. He has been a certified as a Certified Floodplain Manager since 2001.

229

H-6 Floodplain Mapping: Technology ­ Modeling Moderator: Gaston Cabanilla, PE, CFM, CDM 2-D Floodplain Hydraulic Modeling using 1-D Hydraulic Models

Harshal Desai, P.E., CFM, Project Manager, PBS& J Matt Baird, P.E., CFM, Associate Vice President, PBS&J David Williams, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, National Technical Director, PBS&J Abstract

The hydraulic properties of the floodplain are anisotropic in nature, meaning the floodplain is distinct in all three spatial dimensions. However, detailed floodplain hydraulic modeling traditionally entails one dimensional (1-D), steady-state simulations to compute the base flood elevations (BFE). This methodology is generally used because of the simplicity of 1-D models in conjunction with schedule and budgetary constraints. The 1-D modeling approach is appropriate in some scenarios, but in other cases it does not hydraulically characterize the true nature of the floodplain and the impacts of the flooding. In situations like this a two dimensional (2-D) analysis is warranted. This paper focuses on an approach which involves the use of the different routines available in a 1-D model to do a depth averaged 2-D hydraulic analysis. The primary benefit of this approach is it saves the user the time to develop a complicated 2-D model without compromising the accuracy of floodplain delineation and BFEs. This approach generally provides a reasonable representation of the floodplain which can be used with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). This hydraulic modeling approach has been tested on various FIRM map revision requests submitted to FEMA. This paper will explore different case studies where this approach was used to represent the 2-D nature of the floodplain. Some of these studies were submitted / approved by FEMA. The other topics that will be discussed in this paper are the use of GIS to manipulate the 1-D analysis data to demonstrate 2-D phenomena. Also, this paper will have discussion on delineation of the floodway using laterally varying BFEs across the floodplain determined using the above approach.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Harshal Desai Harshal Desai, P.E., CFM, has 5 years of experience in the field of water resources engineering. He has worked on diverse projects related to preparation of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map revision studies, flood control facility design, watershed management, and flood control master planning. He graduated from Purdue University in 2001 with a M.S. in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on environmental and hydraulics engineering. Mr. Desai is currently the project manager with the water resources division for the PBS&J Las Vegas office.

230

Uncertainty Issues in Flood Inundation Mapping

Jerad D. Bales, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, North Carolina Abstract

Although the flood inundation maps represent the boundaries of inundated areas with a distinct line on a map, there is some uncertainty associated with these maps. Moreover, uncertainties vary depending on the scale at which the inundation modeling is conducted. There are a number of methods for estimating uncertainties associated with hydraulic modeling and inundation mapping, but data required to apply these methods are seldom available for practical applications. Uncertainties can be discussed in the context of data for model development and calibration, steady versus unsteady flow modeling, and one-dimensional versus two-dimensional modeling are discussed in this section. Flood inundation models require three types of data. These are (1) topographic data for the hydraulic model computational grid and the inundation maps; (2) effective friction values (Manning's n) for each computational segment (one-dimensional model) or cell (two-dimensional model); and (3) model validation data of some type, and uncertainties exist in each of these data types. In addition, models applied in nearreal time also require a forecast hydrograph. Inundation maps are typically developed by using a steady-flow hydraulic model. This means that, for example, if an inundation map is developed for a site, the flow at the site has been a constant for a period sufficiently long for all lands that could be flooded at that flow to have become inundated. This assumption clearly has less of an effect on inundation maps produced for lower flows than for higher flows because more time typically is required to inundate areas at high flows than at low flows. Moreover, two floods at a given location having the same peak flow could have distinctly different inundation patterns. A flood for which water levels rise slowly to the peak, and then fall slowly will most likely result in more inundation than a flood with the same peak flow, but which rises and falls very quickly. One-dimensional models are relatively easy to construct, and simulations can be made quickly. These models are based on the assumption that the hydraulic variables (water-surface elevation, water-surface slope, velocity, and cross-sectional flow area) are uniform across a transect and that primary variation in these variables is from upstream to downstream. This assumption is reasonable for a prismatic channel in a relatively narrow floodplain. The limitations of the one-dimensional approach become evident when main channel cross sections along which water-surface elevation is calculated intersect tributaries or the main channel, when the channel is sinuous. Two-dimensional models are finding increasing use for simulation of floodplain inundation because of the variability in topography across the floodplain, particularly in wide floodplains with numerous tributaries. Studies have demonstrated that correct simulation of storage of water in floodplain near channel is important for predicting flood wave timing, and the increased lateral resolution of a two-dimensional model allows proper simulation of this process. Two-dimensional models are particularly appropriate for simulating the passage of a flood hydrograph. Examples of each of the effects of each of these types will be presented. Effects on development of flood inundation maps will be discussed. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Jerad D. Bales Dr. Bales has been a Hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Raleigh, NC, since 1986. He has degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin ( Ph.D., 1986) and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (M.S., 1978; B.S., 1977). Concurrent with his position with the USGS, he has served as Adjunct Professor at the Department of Geography at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Visiting Assistant Professor in Forestry and Environmental Studies at Duke University, Durham. He is a registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina, and a member of the American Geophysical

231

Union, the Estuarine Research Federation, and the American Water Resources Association. He has served on the Hydraulic Engineering Technical Oversight, Hydraulic Measurements and Experimentation, Tidal Hydraulics, and Environmental Hydraulics Technical Committees for ASCE. Dr. Bales is experienced in the use of a wide variety of hydrologic, hydraulic, and surface-water-quality models. He has served as a member of numerous interagency review panels, including reviews of Florida Bay hydrodynamic modeling, Charleston Harbor transport modeling, Salton Sea thermal modeling and Onondaga Lake water-quality modeling. In addition to his work in North Carolina, Dr. Bales has participated in and provided consultation on hydrodynamic and water-quality modeling projects in more than a dozen states, and is currently working with NOAA on a flood forecasting ­ flood mitigation project in India. He represents USGS on the IOOS Data Management and Communications Standard Committee and the National Monitoring Network interagency design group, and was previously a member of the USGS National Streamflow Information Program design team. Dr. Bales has authored more than 100 articles and technical reports, including reports on effects of Hurricanes Fran (1996) and Floyd (1999). He has received numerous awards for his government service with USGS, including the U.S. Department of the Interior Superior Service Award in 1992.

Advances in the Numerical Modeling of Floods

Adri Verwey WL | Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands Abstract

Over the past decade, significant developments have taken place in the area of numerical modeling to support flood plain management. In this paper we are limiting ourselves to developments in the modeling of hydrological and hydraulic processes. The following contributions will be discussed: · developments in data collection and data processing; · developments in numerical methods; · developments in computer technology; · developments in model integration, where in some contributions the USA and in other contributions Europe is leading. In the past, one of the constraints in the development of numerical models has been the lack of data and their accessibility. This has often lead to the development of simplified models, as data to develop more refined descriptions was lacking and its collection would be too costly for the specific application. Meanwhile, techniques have been developed to collect large amounts of information at reasonable cost. Examples are the use of ADCP to monitor flow discharges, low cost pressure sensors to collect water level time series, LiDAR, to provide us with detailed topographies and remote sensing to provide us with soil moisture data etc. As a result, and as the need arises, unsteady flow simulation methods are replacing steady flow simulations and two-dimensional (2D) flow simulation become more and more complementary to 1D descriptions. Numerical methods recently have gained much in stability and robustness of their operations. This implies faster and cheaper model construction and a focus on correct physical parameters rather than artificial numerical parameters. With the current state-of-the-art of numerical techniques, flooding and drying of flood plains is represented correctly. The same applies to the simulation of special phenomena, such as the propagation of hydraulic jumps. In addition, the new numerical techniques have led to faster simulations. Faster simulations also result from the continuous development in storage capacity and clock speed of computers. It can be expected that at least for the next decade Moore's law will continue to be valid, stating that storage density and speed will double every two years.

232

All these factors are leading to the use of more correct and more complex models. It is becoming common practice to model hydrological and hydraulic processes in an integrated way. Similarly, various spatial process descriptions are being integrated, such as 1D and 2D models. All these developments lead to more representative models available to flood plain managers, at reduced cost. This, in turn, enables flood plain managers to reduce uncertainties when taking decisions on investments in flood plains or in setting rules for land use. A variety of examples of such model applications will be given. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Adri Verwey Mr. Verwey has a broad experience with flood studies, both through the development of flood simulation tools and practical studies. He was the original developer of the predecessor of DHI's Mike 11 modeling system and for more than 7 years he has been responsible for the further development of Delft Hydraulics' SOBEK system. With both modeling systems he has been involved in practical applications in The Netherlands, Bangladesh, Singapore and various other countries. He has extensive experience with knowledge transfer as an associate professor at UNESCO-IHE in Delft and through many courses and conference keynote lectures presented all over the world. He published many articles on the development and application of mathematical models applied in hydraulic engineering and hydrology. Mr. Verwey is a co-author of the widely referenced book "Practical Aspects of Computational River Hydraulics". He also was the principal organizer of the First International Conference on Hydroinformatics, held in Delft in 1994. For a full CV, search internet on "verwey curriculum vitae".

233

H-7 Floodplain Mapping: Flood Mapping ­ State Initiatives II) Moderator: Dennis Lawlor, AMEC Earth & Environmental North Carolina Stream Mapping Project

Roger Cottrell, Project Manager, Watershed Concepts Scott Edelman, President, Watershed Concepts Abstract

The North Carolina Stream Mapping Project was developed as a response to the NC General Assembly's request to improve the mapping and digital representation of surface waters in the state. Nineteen counties affected by Hurricanes Frances and Ivan in western North Carolina are designated as the first phase of the five-year project. The project uses state wide LIDAR data along with orthoimagery and other ancillary data to create local resolution National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) data. Drainage basins are delineated based on a six-acre limit. Streams and waterbodies are created based on these drainage limits. Reach codes and other attributes from 24K NHD are conflated to corresponding local resolution features. Attributes to track source data and edit history at the feature level extend the base NHD data model. This presentation will give perspectives on project initiation, horizontal accuracy assessment, software development, and data maintenance planning developed through the project.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Roger Cottrell Roger Cottrell is Watershed Concepts' Greensboro, NC Office Manager and a Project Manager with 13 years of GIS experience, including 5 years of project management experience with GIS design and development projects. He has extensive experience using GIS for spatial data maintenance, display and analysis. Mr. Cottrell also has extensive experience in working on projects involving the gathering of system requirements from various stakeholders. He has worked for local, state and federal agencies either as an employee or consultant. This experience includes using GIS in oil and gas, environmental monitoring, natural resource management, emergency management and system modeling. Mr. Cottrell is the Project Manager and GIS subject matter expert for the horizontal placement of streamlines representing streambeds in a 19-county area in western North Carolina. This includes the design and creation of a custom, NHD geodatabase and tools used to create and manage hydrographic data for mapping and hydrologic modeling using geometric networks, routes and related linear events; the management of multiple GIS personnel; and close coordination with state, local, and private organizations. His prior experience includes development

234

The State as a Resource: Alabama's Efforts to Obtain Best Available Data in the Map Modernization Process

John Ammons, PE, Project Engineer, Alabama Office of Water Resources Michael Taylor, PE, CFM, Project Manager, Watershed Concepts (RMC IV) Leslie Durham, PE, Map Mod Prog Manager, Alabama Office of Water Resources Purvi Talati, Project Engineer, Alabama Office of Water Resources Abstract

The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs' (ADECA) Office of Water Resources (OWR) Division is utilizing existing State resources to enhance the Map Modernization Program. OWR utilized the Department of Revenue, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and several other agencies. OWR has been aided in this process from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV and the National Service Provider (NSP) in Regional Management Center (RMC) IV. The Department of Revenue was in possession of high resolution ortho-photography, but was reluctant to share the data with OWR. The data was an outstanding benefit to the Map Modernization Program. However, the Department of Revenue did not want to turn over the data. It feared the data would be turned over to the public with no monetary reward in return. OWR, FEMA Region IV, and RMC IV worked together to solve the problem. The solution allowed the high resolution ortho-photography to be used in the Map Modernization Process. However, the data distributed to the public would be re-sampled to a lower resolution. This allowed OWR to meet all FEMA requirements of the Map Modernization Program. At the same time, it allowed the Department of Revenue to be sole owner of the high resolution data. OWR also looked to the Alabama Department of Transportation to help the Map Modernization Program. Alabama had many effective flood maps over 15 years old. During this time, many bridges and culverts have been added. OWR requested all Letters of Map Change (LOMC) that were filed by the DOT from RMC IV, and quickly realized the DOT did not always complete a LOMC for every applicable highway project. OWR and RMC IV decided to start a dialogue with the DOT. In doing so, OWR was able to convey the importance of LOMCs to obtain and maintain accurate floodplain maps to the DOT. Additional State agencies were utilized in all aspects of the Map Modernization Program including levee certification, leverage, flood studies not shown on the effective maps, and topography. In every case, OWR found that working together resulted in a better product and enhanced knowledge. This not only benefited the Map Modernization Program, but the citizens of Alabama as well.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: John Ammons For the past five years, John has worked as an Environmental Engineer with the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA), Office of Water Resources, which is in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Map Modernization Program. In the Floodplain Management Branch, John currently serves as the Project Manager for all of the Alabama counties being mapped by URS, Incorporated and for many of the Alabama counties being mapped by Malcolm Pirnie, Incorporated. John writes the Task Orders for contracts with URS. John serves as the Team Lead for the Quality Control of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Flood Studies for the State of Alabama. By analyzing the hydrology using modeling tools such as HEC-HMS and by analyzing the hydraulics using

235

modeling tools such as HEC-RAS, John ensures that the contractors' H&H studies meet the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. John also utilizes ESRI ArcGIS in performing QC on the delineation of the floodplain mapping projects. John negotiates with various agencies to secure the proper Digital Data Sharing Agreements. John presents the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) and discusses the maps during the Post Preliminary DFIRM Community Coordination Meetings. John utilizes presentations as a means to provide Outreach to the Communities for Needs Assessment. Prior to his position at ADECA, John gained valuable experience as an Environmental Scientist in the capacity of a complaint investigator and field inspector for 22 years with the Alabama Health Department's Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management's Air Division. John has inspected most of the major sources of air pollution in the state of Alabama and has logged more than a million travel miles without any serious accidents. John has negotiated resolutions to hundreds of air pollution complaints. Before coming on board with the state, John was a Research Scientist for two years at the Southern Research Institute in Birmingham where he gained experience in the areas of cancer and chemotherapy, biomedical engineering, and mechanical engineering thermal expansion. John has been awarded numerous academic awards and scholarships throughout his career including BSC and UAB Scholarships, two EPA Fellowships and the Alabama Consulting Engineering Council's Dick Groendyke Award. John is an active member of the Montgomery Lions Club.

Automated Zone A Modeling and Mapping in Crawford and Ellsworth Counties, Kansas

Gilbert Jones, P.E., CFM, Regional Branch Manager, Dewberry Collin Olsen, CFM, Floodplain Mapping Specialist, Kansas Dept of Agriculture William Zung, CFM, Senior Project Hydrologist, URS Corporation Abstract

As a Cooperating Technical Partner with FEMA, the Kansas Department of Agriculture ­Division of Water Resources is managing the update and production of the State's preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs). Because of the largely rural nature of much of the State, automated approximate modeling and mapping methods are being used for a majority of the streams in the State. For two counties, Crawford and Ellsworth, customized tools that link terrain processing, hydrology, hydraulics and mapping in an ArcGIS 9/SDE database environment were successfully used to automate the production of nearly 2,000 miles of stream in a cost effective manner. The SDE database also allowed simultaneous multi-user editing; provided access via the Internet so that the work could be done from multiple offices; and export of DCS-compliant terrain, hydrology and hydraulic products.

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Gilbert Jones Gilbert Jones, P.E., CFM, is a Regional Branch Manager for Dewberry. He has 16 years of experience in NFIP-related fields and water resources engineering. His current responsibilities include managing a team

236

of 28 staff dedicated to performing flood studies and flood hazard mapping. Prior to joining Dewberry & Davis in 1998, Mr. Jones was a manager for ENVIRON Corporation, where he conducted and managed a wide variety of water resources projects, including engineering analysis and conceptual design of hydrologic systems, sedimentation and retention structures, and hydraulic systems.

237

H-8 Hydrology & Hydraulics/River Restoration: Watersheds and Wetland Restoration Moderator: Dan Sherwood, PE Feast or Famine ­ An Everglades Restoration Dilemma

Richard D. Gibney, Senior Professional Associate, HDR Engineering, Inc. Caroline Masek, Water Resources Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc. Abstract

The restoration of the Everglades has been called one of the most significant environmental projects ever undertaken. For well over a century mankind's efforts in southern Florida were geared toward the modification of the natural hydrology and hydraulics, with a goal of expanding areas for development, including residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural interests. In response to the hurricanes of the 1920's, muck fires of the 1930's, and water management needs in modern times, the natural hydrology of the Everglades was significantly modified. One of the key features of this modification is the St. Lucie Canal. This 23.7 mile long waterway connects Lake Okeechobee with the St. Lucie Estuary. This waterway is part of a navigable channel system which connects the Atlantic Ocean with the Gulf of Mexico. This channel also serves as a primary Lake discharge point which aids in the control of Lake Okeechobee water levels. "Excess" water can be discharged into the St. Lucie Canal (C-44 Canal) and then into the St. Lucie Estuary (SLE) in response to a significant rainfall event within the lake's watershed. Oftentimes, the volume of flow and its quality can have a significant impact to the estuarine environment. The C-44 Project is one component of an overall program designed to provide a means to reduce those events which impact the overall viability of the St. Lucie estuary. As originally envisioned, this project consisted of 33,150 acre-feet of storage connected to 6,000 acres of Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs). The primary goal of the project is the reduction of both the rate and volume of flow through the C-44 Canal resulting in improved water quality to the SLE. The flow regime of the C-44 Canal must be understood so that facilities can be designed cost-effectively. To understand this flow regime a number of simulation models were used to evaluate proposed system hydrology and hydraulics. Thus, these models were employed in the simulation of the operational aspects of the project, including the evaluation of C-44 Canal flows and water surface elevations, intake canal and pump station hydraulics, reservoir discharge and flow distribution, STA hydraulic performance, and ultimate system discharge. The models used included MIKE 11, Advanced ICPR, and SWMM5. This paper describes the model selection and application processes applied for the complex hydrology and hydraulic design of the C-44 Reservoir/STA Project. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Richard Gibney Richard Gibney is a Senior Professional Associate specializing in Water Resource Engineering. Mr. Gibney has over 25 years of experience in the areas of surface water hydrology and hydraulics including significant expertise in runoff simulation and evaluation. Mr. Gibney has been involved in evaluation of flood impacts throughout the coastal southeast including considerable efforts in flood plain modeling and evaluation for FEMA.

238

NUMERIC QUANTIFICATION OF THE ROLE OF WETLANDS IN FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Burke Lokey, P.E., CFM, Water Resources Group Manager, Carter Burgess Wen Chen, Ph.D., P.E., CFM, Senior Engineer, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Abstract

Current practice for floodplain boundary analysis is based on delination of floodways within the floodplain using steady flow riverine hydraulic models such as HEC-2 and HEC-RAS. While this general methodology has been used for many years, there are some intrinsic problems with the approach which are especially problematic when considering the hydraulic impacts of wetlands in the floodplain. Of great concern to many floodplain managers is the suspicion that current methods do not really provide the degree of conservatism that we thought. There is a lot of allegorical and empirical evidence that floods are getting worse and costing the nation more every decade (ASFPM NAI, various other refs). In spite of the fact that floodplains are regulated more comprehensively and with better data and more detailed models than at any other point in history, the level of damages on average has increased dramatically every decade since the 1960s. The increase in losses may be related to growth and development in floodplains, but if the current regulatory approach was effective the increase in flood damages should have been mitigated. It is our contention that the emphasis on allowable floodplain encroachment, as encouraged by the current approach to floodplain management, is a primary cause of the overall increase in flooding severity. Wetlands have long been recognized as an important ecological and environmental resource. It is also widely acknowledged that wetlands have some attenuating effect on floodpeaks and there are many references supporting this assertion. However, most of the studies that are specific to wetlands impacts on flooding have approached the problem in one of two ways. The investigators either focused on an analysis of the relationship between flooding as evidenced by monetary losses and the loss of wetlands within the flooded watershed, (Mississippi (or Missouri) River study) or they developed hydrologic models which attempt to model storage within the floodplain using some sort of routing algorithm (Red River study). Given there is so much evidence that wetlands do have some impact on flood peaks, it seems that defining the physical relationship between the two should be a priority. In addition to the obvious benefit of reducing flood losses simply by protecting our existing wetlands, there very likely could be a significant benefit to the environmental community as a more detailed understanding of the inter-related hydraulic function of floodplains and wetlands is developed. This paper presents a numeric model based analysis of the hydraulic function of wetlands in riverine floodplains. The results of an unsteady RAS model of a riverine floodplain are compared to the current floodplain/floodway developed using a conventional steady state hydraulic model. The comparison is expected to show that the floodplain limits and maximum water surface elevations resulting from an unsteady model are less than that of the steady model, while the floodway identified in the unsteady model is a much greater percentage of the floodplain. As storage (ie, wetlands) is removed from the unsteady model the results should begin to converge with those of the steady model. If the results of the model comparisons are consistent with expectations, this approach could present a compelling economic argument for preservation of wetlands and limitation of floodplain encroachment.

239

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Burke Lokey Mr. Lokey is a senior engineer and project manager responsible for the Water Resources Group in the Phoenix office of Carter Burgess. He has 30 years experience working on public and private sector infrastructure projects in the West and Southwest. Since 1996 he has worked exclusively in water resources and has focused on urban drainage and floodplain management. His experience includes large area planning studies using GIS and integrated hydrologic and hydraulic models.

The Funding Approach, flood control benefits, and large scale implementation role of a small restoration project in the Gila River"

Theresa M. Pinto, CFM, Project Manager, Flood Control District of Maricopa County Chuck Williams, P.E., Prinicipal Engineer, CL Williams Consulting, Inc. Abstract

Maricopa County in central Arizona is approximately 9,200 square miles, is larger than 7 states, and has a rapidly growing population of over 3,300,000. The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (District) has been responsible for identifying and reducing flood hazards, managing floodplains, educating the public about flood risks, and constructing flood control projects for over 50 years. Managing floodplains and their risks in this large and rapidly growing area has many challenges. One challenge the District is facing is managing invasive species that reduce the conveyance capacity and hydraulic efficiency of rivers and constructed flood control channels, thereby increasing the floodplain. To address this challenge, the District is undertaking a 10-acre river restoration project in the Gila River; the largest in-state river in Arizona with a watershed size of approximately 46,000 square miles. The restoration project involves removing salt cedar (i.e., tamarisk), a non-native invasive tree that is choking many of the rivers and washes in the Western United States, and replacing it with mesquite, which is a native riparian species. Replacing salt cedar with mesquite can improve the hydraulic properties and flood conveyance of the rivers. Additionally, replacing salt cedar with mesquite has an ancillary benefit of improving habitat quality, aesthetics, and recreation opportunities. Salt cedar removal and replacement projects have been undertaken in areas with perennial water, such as along the Colorado River, but have not been undertaken in ephemeral or intermittent rivers like the Gila River. Creative funding of this project was a challenge due to the multi-faceted nature of the project. No single local, state or federal government agency currently exists to address the issue of how river restoration and flood control are effectively combined. Therefore many agencies came together to participate in the project at the level authorized by their agencies purpose. Stakeholder strategy sessions were organized and held to achieve consensus on the need for and purpose of the educational and research restoration project. After agreement on the purpose and need a site selection study and funding were pursued and obtained. Issues associated with the project that will be discussed in the presentation include a description of the problem with tamarisk reducing conveyance in southwestern rivers, methods used and lessons learned to achieve consensus and funding for the project, implementation strategies for larger scale restoration/flood control projects, an overview of design and maintenance considerations and an overview of short and long term anticipated results.

240

PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Theresa Pinto Theresa Pinto holds a Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources from the University of Michigan, a Master of Science from Northern Arizona University, and is a Certified Floodplain Manager. Theresa has over 18 years of experience working in the environmental field, including working for both the private and public sector. Currently, Theresa is a Project Manager at the Flood Control District of Maricopa County in Phoenix, Arizona, where she oversees large watershed studies and area drainage master plans, as well as several riparian restoration projects.

241

H-9 International Aspects and Issues: A U.K. Perspective Moderator: Mark Riebau, Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. A Risk Based Modelling Approach to Floodplain Management and Flood Forecasting in the UK

Chris Whitlow, Ph.D., Consultant, EdenVale Modelling Services Abstract

This paper describes the emerging risk-based modeling strategy developed by the author for the Flood Risk Management function of the Environment Agency of England and Wales. In this context, modeling supports floodplain mapping, asset management, strategic planning and flood forecasting and warning. It also details several practical applications from both floodplain mapping, flood forecasting and strategic planning, illustrating how these applications are related. The practical examples cover the following watercourses which vary between a relatively small odeling catchment through to the largest rivers in the UK. · · · · · Tidal Thames through London River Thames through Oxford and Reading River Eden Chorlton Brook Tidal reaches of the River Severn and River Trent

This strategy is partly in response to the UK governmental strategy `Making Space for Water' and the emerging European Community Floods Directive, as well as the UK Government's sustainable development strategy Securing the Future. Modelling underpins the ability to deliver solutions under all of the above. The strategy aims to ensure that the EA is able to deliver its current and future obligations in an effective and efficient manner. To this end it identifies: · · · · · · the need to focus odeling activities according to flood risk the business drivers that will further development our odeling capabilities where current odeling activities need to be improved to fully meet the EA's new commitments the need to ensure that the EA is regarded by its stakeholders as experts in flood risk and as an intelligent client when work is commissioned to consultants the need to measure performance across all areas of odeling in order to identify future investment needs a recommended timeline within which the tasks identified will need to be delivered to meet the EA's commitments between now and 2012.

A key issue is the relationship between flood risk and the recommended model scale and complexity. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Chris Whitlow Dr. Chris Whitlow graduated in Mathematics at the University of Leeds with first class honours and then successfully completed a PhD in Fluid Mechanics Modeling on stability of atmospheric flows also at the University of Leeds.

242

He then joined Halcrow Consulting Engineers and worked on the development of the ISIS hydrodynamic model as well as water quality odeling, groundwater odeling, 2-D coastal odeling and 3-D odeling. After almost 10 years with Halcrow he set up an independent consultancy odeling ing in hydraulic odeling and developed links with UK universities such as Birmingham, Leeds and Nottingham. In 1999 he began a long and successful association with flood forecasting for the Environment Agency initially with North West region and later with Thames region, introducing real-time hydrodynamic odeling into these regions. In 2000 he began his association with the Agency's national forecasting work, working initially on the replacement strategy for the Midlands forecasting system which then expanded to writing the common component of the specification for what became the National Flood Forecasting System. He has worked extensively on developing real-time forecasting models from existing models developed for flood mapping and other purposes. Catchments for which this work has been carried out include the Eden, Mersey, Thames, Bristol Avon, Tidal Trent, Tidal Severn and recently the Clyde, Irvine and Kelvin in Scotland. He has also written the national guidelines for acceptance of ISIS models for flood forecasting purposes. In the last year, he has been involved in the development of the Environment Agency's overall odeling strategy for Flood Risk Management which will shortly be published for external consultation.

THE ROLE OF A MODERN FLOOD FORECASTING SYSTEM IN THE FLOOD LOSS MITIGATION ­ A COUNTRY WIDE CASE IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Karel Heynert1, M.Sc., Delft Hydraulics Doug Whitfield, M.Sc.2, Environmental Agency Micha Werner, Ph.D.1, Delft Hydraulics Abstract

Design levels of flood protection systems generally leave a significant residual risk of flooding. Flood forecasting and warning systems should therefore be an essential component in the flood loss mitigation chain. On the basis of timely and accurate forecasts of extreme floods, loss of life and property can be minimized. New developments in the field of flood forecasting are increasing the reliability of flood forecasting systems and as such strengthening their role in minimizing flood loss. This paper will demonstrate how closing the gap between meteorological and flood forecasting, advances in the model application and data assimilation techniques can contribute to more reliable and informative forecasts. A country-wide case in England and Wales will be used to demonstrate the potential of recent advances in flood forecasting systems. Flood forecasting systems used operationally by the Environment Agency (EA) for England and Wales have in recent years undergone significant modernization. The National Flood Forecasting System used for delivering operational forecasts across the eight regions of the EA, now makes use of the open shell flood forecasting system DELFT-FEWS. This system adopts an open approach to integration of methods and models in flood forecasting. In the paper the structure DELFT FEWS system is briefly outlined. The

243

underlying concepts of the system are discussed, and it will be demonstrated how this has acted as an enabling technology in integrating a wide variety of forecasting methods and models. The paper illustrates how the open systems approach greatly eases the introduction of new state-of-the-art methods from the research field into the operational arena. In the same light, the paper discusses the need for introducing new meteorological data products into the forecasting process. 1 WL | Delft Hydraulics, Rotterdamseweg 185, Delft, The Netherlands 2 Environment Agency, Newtown Industrial Estate, Northway Lane, Tewkesbury, GL20 8JG, UK PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Karel Heynert Karel Heynert graduated in Civil from Delft University of Technology in 1990 as a civil engineer. He joined the Netherlands Development Aid to work as a field hydrologist in the Yemen Arab Republic in the period 1987-1990 in country wide water resources assessment projects. In 1990, Karel Heynert joined Delft Hydraulics in Delft, The Netherlands where he conducted project and research in the field of river hydrology and hydraulics, water resources assessment, and flood management. From 1993 to 1996, he worked in Egypt on water management and irrigation system rehabilitation in the Fayoum Province. Upon his return to Delft, he has been involved in numerous projects focusing on the design of the flood protection systems along the large rivers in The Netherlands. In addition he carried out numerous project assessment and formulation missions to for example India, Yemen, Sudan and Tanzania. Since 2002, he is Delft Hydraulics' project manager for the development and implementation of the National Flood Forecasting System in England and Wales. Currently, he is also working on pilot studies for the modernization of the flood forecasting system of the National Weather Service in the US.

Case Study of Ironbridge, U.K., Mitigation

Sten-Magnus Kullberg, President, Geodesign Barriers AB Astrid Marklund Abstract

Flood-prone urban areas are notoriously difficult to hydraulically model. The modelling needs to emulate the complex array of flows that develop as floodwaters negotiate fences, buildings, narrow paths, manholes and underground pipe systems. The high variability in land-use and artificial nature of the flowpaths causes unusual hydraulic phenomena, including super-critical flow, hydraulic jumps and severe flow constrictions. Compared to their natural state, these areas are often very different hydraulically and much more difficult to model. Whilst 1D hydraulic modelling works well for pipe systems and conventional structures, it is usually very difficult to apply accurately for overland urban flooding problems. 2D modelling offers considerable improvements in accuracy, and when the 2D solution is dynamically coupled with a 1D approach for pipes it becomes a powerful modelling solution for urban flooding. However, there remain many pitfalls for the modeller and client to fall into, and the impressive animations these models produce, whilst appearing right, can be misleading. 2D and 2D/1D flood-modelling software has been researched, developed and embraced within Australia since the early 1990s, and is today, now often used for urban flooding problems. The 1D/2D combination when correctly applied provides a much-improved analysis. Compared with 1D solutions, the combination of 1D and 2D considerably improves the quality and accuracy in quantifying flood behaviour and the flood risk in flood-prone urban environments.

244

The primary benefits from 2D are: more accurate solution of the governing equations; two or three orders of magnitude higher resolution output; flowpaths do not have to be pre-defined; vastly more accurate mapping of flood inundation, flood levels and flood hazard; and importantly, the modelling is more easily understood and accepted by stakeholders. The primary practical disadvantage of 2D modelling is the longer simulation times compared with 1D solutions. However, often not fully recognised are the uncertainties and inaccuracies associated with modelling complex three-dimensional hydraulic phenomena using 1D and 2D solutions. Understanding and correcting for these limitations is critical to correctly emulating the urban flooding environment. The pros and cons of 2D and 2D/1D urban flood and structure modelling are discussed and illustrated through benchmark tests and real-world examples using the TUFLOW www.tuflow.com) software. PRIMARY AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Sten-Magnus Kullberg Mr. Kullberg is the president of Geodesign Barriers, founded 1992. In 1993 the development of flood barriers started and in year 2000 Mr. Kullberg received the Geneva Invention Fair Gold medal for the flood barrier invention. This construction was also awarded the Nova Award by Construction Innovation Forum, University of Michigan in year 2001. In 2002 he was nominated "Inventor of The Year" by The Swedish Association of Inventors. Mr. Kullberg has a degree in civil engineer from Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Geodesign Barriers are currently operating in most European countries, Australia, New Zeeland and the U.S.

245

Information

Microsoft Word - 2007 Abstract and Bio 5 31 07.doc

280 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

190515


You might also be interested in

BETA
Microsoft Word - 2007 Abstract and Bio 5 31 07.doc