National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
E. Data & Technology
E.1. Provide reliable funds for streamgaging and
identify additional funding sources for streamflow
data gathering and analysis and encourage local
participation in funding the gage system. Establish
an intergovernmental commission for
recommendations to meet these goals. With
increasing evidence of changes in climate and
rainfall patterns, the enhancement and
strengthening of the nation’s stream gaging
network and stream flow data collection is
becoming critical for flood risk management and
long-range emergency and watershed planning
and standard setting. May be good intro language
Funding for gages need to be increased substantially.
Right now the funding for the gage program is about
$110M / yr. That should be on the scale of the
mapping program (say $250 or $300M / yr).
In the interim, OEP managers should be partners with
the floodplain managers as they may have access to
stream gage funding that is from many sources.
Deb mills has many comments in her submittal for
Mitigation committee for this section—Siavash, please
look at them--LL
Also phrased: “Provide funds for streamgaging.
Fully fund the NSIP and provide frequent updates
of stated regression equations.”
Also phrased: “Provide federal and over funds for
streamgages.”
E.2. Fund and update and maintain list of critical
index stream gages (NSIP) nationwide—federal
funding of this network is essential.
E.3. Develop mechanisms by which NWS/local
Are we considering river management and/or flood
warning systems can supplement stream gage data forecasting systems?
to help in the forecasting of stormwater and urban
flooding.
E.4. Place all data collected post-disaster
(including NFIP claims information) in public
domain and easily accessible to states, localities,
researchers & stakeholders; in real time
Comment: the claim of “privacy” of much NFIP
individual and geographic area data and the
consequent continual state of public confusion over
costs and trends for 45 years has substantially
retarded necessary research and analysis to assist
the improvement of many aspects of the NFIP and
disaster program. A major policy shift is needed in
this area.
Also phrased “. Place all data collected postdisaster in public domain and easily accessible to
NFPPR Combined comm rec and comments
Comment. Covered in Section H – Mitigation
Nice idea, but good luck with that. Maybe as a
condition of receiving public assistance (flood
insurance, SBA loans, etc, the property owner has to
sign a waiver of the Privacy Act, thereby, making the
information about their property public
This would violate the Privacy Act. Rather than asking
FEMA to violate a federal law we should seek the
exemption of this data from the Privacy Act, but that is
highly unlikely; however, we could look at consolidating
data into areas rather than property specific.
SHMO’s / Coordinators / CTP’s should (and mainly do)
have access to this. Public domain is a little more
Page 1 of 4
draft 10 9-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
states, localities, researchers & stakeholders.
Encourage the consolidation of information
protected under Privacy Act into census block level
data or some similar aggregation of data so that it
is useful for planning, analysis and research to
assist in the improvement of the NFIP, flood risk
communication and disaster response.”
Siavash—this is a tricky one, but very important
that somehow we get key data available in some
form for use by locals, state, etc. Even if on block
level or some other level--LL
tricky. I know that Polis (our partner) has a nondisclosure agreement to use this data for research, but
not for general release. Knipe?
Perhaps this should be re-worded to seek the
exemption of this data from the Privacy Act? As it
stands, FEMA will not be able to implement this
recommendation until that is changed.
There has been a shift in some states to greater
availability of this data to jurisdictions and by extension
their agents for better research and planning.
Considering the push to move NFIP to communitybased and private institution provision, the availability
of this data could be decreasing, not increasing, if we
don’t push for reporting of all flood activity to the NFIP
regardless of the point of sale and claims payment.
Data collected by the Parish through observation (not
collection of data for a federally funded grant
application) or submission for permits is arguably
already in the public domain, and should remain so. I
do not know if the fight to make flood data available to
the public will increase our access to data significantly.
State NFIP Coordinators and SHMOs have access to this
information and can release jurisdiction-specific data to
local governments withholding owner name and ss#.
Proactive states and local governments use the
information. Otherwise, the “public” isn’t going to
understand it, use it, or benefit from it. I suggest
deleting from Section E. D. Mills.
E.5. Develop open-source tools for post-flood
damage estimation
From solicited committee comments: I suggest that the
“Open Source” should not be a requirement to
hydraulic/hydrologic models used for flooding studies
since it does not necessarily add value to the
performance of flooding studies.
This may belong in Section H because it directly relates
to HMGP Policy memos as well as data development
specific to the BCA modules. The rest of E is mostly
flood hazard mapping/assessment related.
E.6. (a)Collect nationwide data on number of
floodprone structures, dams & levees, population
at risk. New law (BW-12) requires such data as well
as other critical data to be both collected and
incorporated by FEMA into future flood insurance
NFPPR Combined comm rec and comments
One dataset that FEMA should support with respect to
this is building footprints
c. Honeycutt: We also desperately need updated, high
resolution nearshore bathymetric data, which are
Page 2 of 4
draft 10 9-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
rate maps. TMAC can suggest means of collecting
and incorporating data, however, FEMA is required
to carry out these requirements. Also see I.11
important input data to FEMA coastal flood models.
Consider broadening this rec.
E.6. (b) The federal interagency group Mit FLG, in
consultation with state and local partners should
discuss a continuing process and key roles in how
to collect, aggregate, analyze and operationalize
the collection and use of such data in the NFIP,
flood damage reduction, disaster assistance, and
other federal construction, development, planning,
funding and technical assistance programs.
LB: also need data on number of building that will be
impact by SLR by 2050 and 2100
E.6.(c) Nationwide LiDAR is needed for the entire
nation with flood mapping being one of the major
uses of that topographic data since updated,
accurate topo data is needed with adequate
modeling in order to produce accurate flood maps.
Funding sources can be a combination of different
federal sources, along with state and local sources
in order to reduce duplication of effort
To Siavash—we need a counterpart rec in R—Federal
leadership for both of these-LL
Buss: =Expand this to include the “flood forensics” years
that covers all flood damage cost;, flood response,
recovery, rebuild costs; who received the funds and
what was the source of funds [local, state, federal]. Use
this information to educate the 94% of population that
does not live in flood hazard area but pays the cost of
the 6% that do live in flood hazard areas. concept that
Larry Buss has talked about for several
E.7. (a) Generate complete list of number and
location of residual risk floodplain buildings and
infrastructure and levee-protected buildings and
infrastructure nationwide by making community
participation in NFIP, CRS, disaster assistance,
HMGP grants, approval of local hazard mitigation
plans, and the Corps of Engineers’ Rehabilitation
and Inspection program, (P.L. 84-99) contingent on
community’s supplying and periodically updating
that information
E. 7. (b) Collection of the data on residual risk
structures and infrastructure could be eligible for
cost share funding from HUD, FEMA and other
funding sources.
SHOULD?
E.8. Establish nationwide database on disaster
costs and the benefit/cost ratios of mitigation,
organized by stream reach or shoreline as
designated by the National Hydrography Dataset
or State or Regional equivalent thereof. Track
relative disaster costs and responsibilities by levels
of government and sectors. This data is needed
because Federal costs for disasters are
skyrocketing– potentially in trillions of dollars;
average federal share has risen recent decades
NFPPR Combined comm rec and comments
Page 3 of 4
draft 10 9-14
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
from modest percentages to 70 percent in recent
major disasters. Data needed to better document
costs, trends and values of mitigation. See Q 19
I thought I read and even higher %, but need source-LL
E.9. Determine the true cost of disasters, esp flood
disasters, by research to develop a mechanism to
account for all the direct and indirect costs of a
flood disaster. Increasingly, it appears these cost
may be 10 times greater than current estimates.
And then what? So we have a huge number, Congress
won’t increase funding, so what do we do with it? If we
don’t have that answer, suggest deleting. Disagree-LL
Maria’s point is right—need counterpart in R
Honeycutt: May wish to call upon a group like the
Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
Force to lead such an effort. In reality, FIFM-TF has
started looking into this issue, and has gotten as far as
seeing what data exist now and what some of the
major gaps appear to be in terms of Federal
costs/losses. (Non-Federal/public and private losses,
which are clearly part of a “true cost” definition, have
not been considered yet.)
A key problem to changing this situation is the cost and
lack of mission/mandate for the collection of the
needed data. For this to be an effective, meaningful
(and actionable_ recommendation, consider adding
thoughts about who (which agencies) should be
charged with this responsibility and get needed
funding?
FEMA'S HAZUS-MH DOES ESTIMATE INDIRECT
ECONOMIC LOSSES, ETC. YOU MEAN TABULATING
SUCH INDIRECT COSTS FOR ACTUAL FLOODS?
NFPPR Combined comm rec and comments
Page 4 of 4
draft 10 9-14