ASSOCIATION OF STATE
FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC.
Guidance for The Development of the
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION
STATE BUSINESS PLAN
(INTERIM DRAFT REPORT)
Prepared for:
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
February 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
HISTORY OF FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING IN THE UNITED STATES
2
PURPOSE OF STATE BUSINESS PLAN
3
Flood Map Modernization State Business Plan
Vision
State Role in Map Mod
3
4
4
INVOLVING CTP’S AND OTHER AGENCIES IN THE STATE BUSINESS PLAN
8
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN RELATIONSHIP TO FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING
9
STATE FPM STRATEGIC PLAN: RELATIONSHIP TO MAPPING
10
MAPPING GOALS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
12
2002 Map Modernization Implementation Plan
How to Determine the Appropriate Level of Mapping Detail
ESTIMATING COSTS
13
14
16
Background Information
Mapping Project Costs
Simple Cost Estimation Methods
Unit Costs
17
17
17
18
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES
19
CTP AND MAS ACTIVITIES
19
ORGANIZATION AND CONTRACTING MODELS
21
Identifying Contracting, Technical, and Review Resources
Organizational Structures
Alternative Methods of Contracting for Services
Training Needs and Resources
Strategies for Obtaining Funding
Maintaining Capability and Capacity
STATE BUSINESS PLAN TEMPLATE
21
23
25
27
27
28
28
The FEMA Template
Two State Examples
The Approaches
Additional Considerations
Long-Term Sustainability
28
28
29
29
29
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
TABLES
TABLE 1 - List of Fundable CAP-MAP Activities
5
TABLE 2 - Additional CAP-MAP Funding Activities
7
TABLE 3 - Annual FEMA/DHS Targets for Sub-Program Performance Measures
12
TABLE 4 - Topographic Data Suitability
14
TABLE 5 - Mapping Detail
15
TABLE 6 - Cost Calculations
17
TABLE 7 - Quantity Units
18
TABLE 8 - Summary of Resources
22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF TMAC'S RECOMMENDATIONS
A1
APPENDIX B - FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING ACTIVITIES
B1
APPENDIX C - FEMA'S FY03 BUDGET DECISION OVERVIEW
C1
APPENDIX D - ASFPM RESOLUTION ON MAP MODERNIZATION
D1
APPENDIX D - STREAM MILES (BY STATE)
E1
APPENDIX E - FEMA'S STATE BUSINESS PLAN TEMPLATE
F1
APPENDIX F - SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS PLAN OUTLINE
G1
APPENDIX G - CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PLAN OUTLINE
H1
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 - COST ESTIMATING SPREADSHEET
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to the work group that spent many hours on conference calls and a
meeting in Chicago (Chicago meeting participants denoted by*) to develop this report.
Participants:
Tom Christensen, California*
Bill DeGroot, Denver UDFCD*
Jason Donham, Arkansas
John Dorman, North Carolina
Brian Hyde, Colorado*
Lisa Jones, South Carolina*
Alan Lulloff, Wisconsin*
Bill Nechamen, New York*
Mark Ogden, Ohio*
Jim Williams, Nebraska*
Rich Zingarelli, Massachusetts
Special thanks are due to Tom Christensen, Bill DeGroot, Brian Hyde, Lisa Jones, Alan
Lulloff, Bill Nechamen and Jim Williams for contributing sections of the report.
Thanks is also due the Federal Emergency Management Agency for providing support
to ASFPM to work with state and local partners to prepare this report.
Mark Riebau, PE, CFM
ASFPM
iii
INTRODUCTION
Floods are the nation's most common and costly natural disaster. To reduce the evergrowing expense to the federal government related to flooding, Congress established
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968. The NFIP guarantees that flood
insurance will be available in communities that agree to adopt land-use regulations so
that new development is reasonably protected from flood damages.
Maps depicting flood-hazard areas are not only the foundation of the National Flood
Insurance Program, but also the basis of sound floodplain management at the local and
state levels. If an area is not mapped as a flood hazard area, local governments may
have insufficient basis to regulate new development under their floodplain zoning
ordinances. Nor is the sale of flood insurance mandated for areas not mapped in the
floodplain. Adequate, accurate, and current maps are essential for the program to
function. Without quality mapping, neither land-use regulations nor the insurance
elements of the program can be effective.
The courts have ruled that in order for land-use regulations to be "constitutional," the
regulations must be clear and the lands where they will be applied must be identified on
a map to provide proper public notice. Without building codes, zoning ordinances,
health codes and other regulatory measures, the NFIP will not achieve its goal of
reducing loss of life and property due to floods.
Maps of areas subject to special risks of flooding produced by the NFIP is one of the
basic and essential tools for flood insurance, floodplain management and flood hazard
mitigation.
However, due to the manual cartographic processes used, limited
topographic information and inadequate funding, the flood hazard maps are inadequate
to meet the current needs. Starting in FY03, Congress provided funding to FEMA to
implement the Flood Map Modernization Plan developed to address this problem.
FEMA recognizes that while flood hazard mapping is a federal responsibility it is
important to involve state, regional, and local governments in this initiative to ensure
that the flood hazard maps produced are adequate to meet the needs. In 2002, FEMA
requested states to develop state Map Modernization Implementation Plans (MMIP).
In October 2003, FEMA offered states funds to upgrade these plans and develop the
Flood Map Modernization State Business Plan. Using the FY2002 State plans as a
starting point, states have been asked to identify the projects to be done each year, the
role they will play in managing the projects, and the support they will need from FEMA
to ramp up to this level. FEMA's Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) initiative will
continue to be the funding mechanism for flood hazard mapping projects. A separate,
distinct funding mechanism will be provided for the management activities identified in
this plan.
FEMA entered into a cooperative agreement with the Association of State Floodplain
Managers (ASFPM) to develop supplemental guidance for states to use in the
development of these plans. This document is the result of the work of the task force
that ASFPM formed to develop this guidance.
1
HISTORY OF FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING IN THE UNITED STATES
Mapping of the nation's floodplains began in the 1950's when the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the US Geological Survey, the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS), and
the Tennessee Valley Authority initiated efforts to delineate flood hazards. Soon after
creation of the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968, the US Department of
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) began publishing Flood Hazard Boundary Maps
(FHBM). FHBMs were developed using "approximate study techniques." FHBMs were
intended to provide an early warning for local officials that flooding could occur in their
community. The original plan anticipated that more accurate Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) following completion of detailed studies of the flooding sources would
replace FHBMs within 5 years. Detailed Flood Insurance Studies and FIRMs were
produced throughout the 1970's for many communities across the country.
As this program matured:







HUD realized that instead of 5,000 communities that were originally thought to
have significant flooding problems – and, therefore, needed a map - there were
in excess of 19,000 communities;
FEMA was created in 1979 to administer, among other programs, the NFIP;
In the mid-1980's the Corps of Engineers was directed by OMB to discontinue
producing Floodplain Information Reports. These reports, which often became
the basis for a FIRM, were perceived to be duplicative of the FIS's being
undertaken by FEMA;
The USGS and NRCS were directed by OMB to discontinue producing floodplain
maps based on the same rationale used for the Corps' program;
FEMA was told to end the "emergency phase" of the NFIP effectively limiting
their ability to produce more approximate studies to complete the nation's
mapping;
The number, and costs, of Letters Of Map Amendments (LOMA), Letters Of Map
Revisions (LOMR) and Letters Of Map Revisions Based On Fill (LOMR-F)began to multiply;
FEMA, after realizing they would likely never receive the funds to prepare all
necessary detailed studies, undertook a mass conversion of the remaining Flood
Hazard Boundary Maps to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), without benefit
of further detailed studies.
By 1990, there were over 100,000 panels, but there were still large areas of the country
for which no maps had been developed. In addition, more and more of the funds
earmarked for conducting Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) were diverted to deal with
LOMAs, LOMRs, and LOMR-Fs.
In 1994, Congress directed FEMA to establish the Technical Mapping Advisory Council
(TMAC). The TMAC (1995-2000) provided a series of recommendations to FEMA to
improve the maps and the mapping process.
2
The Technical Mapping Advisory Council was created in November 1995, including in
its membership representatives of a variety of governmental and professional
organizations with an interest in floodplain maps. The Council produced five annual
reports, each containing specific recommendations to FEMA, and a final report in
November 2000 that included a summary of all of the recommendations. Each
recommendation, if implemented, would improve the maps and the mapping processes.
FEMA made great strides to implement those recommendations that were possible
within its existing budget. FEMA also prepared a plan to implement the remaining
Council recommendations and requested the resources necessary to fund its Map
Modernization Plan. A summary of recommendations from the Technical Mapping
Advisory Council's Final Report is included in Appendix A.
PURPOSE OF STATE BUSINESS PLAN
A key recommendation of the Technical Mapping Advisory Council was to find ways to
encourage state, regional and local government to take an active role in the mapping
process based on the philosophy that mapping the nations floodplains should be a
federal/state/local partnership.
In order to develop "partnerships" with states and local agencies it is necessary for each
party to identify what roles they can undertake. State and local agencies are restricted
in what they can do by the laws under which they function and the resources that are
provided to them to carry out their responsibilities.
The purpose of the business plan is two-fold:
1. Identify and document the scope and level of effort needed to adequately map all
flood hazard areas that have been, or could be developed, and to maintain the maps
in the future.
2. Define what management or oversight roles and responsibilities state, local or
regional agencies are willing to assume to improve and maintain flood maps, identify
the authorities that have been established under law to assume the responsibilities,
and estimate the resources required to carryout the functions
FEMA and the NSP will be reviewing each state business plan (as well as the state Map
Modernization Implementation Plans from 2002), discussing those plans with regional
contacts, and incorporating pertinent aspects of the plans into the Multi-Hazard
Implementation Plan (MHIP), as appropriate. The MHIP will be a nationwide, 5-year,
rolling plan for implementing Map Modernization that will be prepared by FEMA and the
NSP.
Flood Map Modernization State Business Plan
The state plan should describe the breadth and depth of mapping needed within the
state. It should describe the total number of stream miles in the state, and miles of
coastline if any, that have been mapped as well as the number of miles that still need be
3
mapped. The "plan" should identify the number of miles of stream with floodways that
require updating and revision and the miles of mapped streams without floodways
where floodways are needed. Identifying population at risk should be part of this
analysis. All incorporated communities with streams within their borders should be
evaluated to ensure the flood hazard is adequately mapped. This information may not
be immediately available and will have to be estimate initially.
Many states prepared Map Modernization Implementation Plans (MMIP) in 2002 that
contain some of this information. The state MMIPs should be the starting point for the
state business plan and should be updated to reflect any new or better information. The
state business plan should be a living document that is updated annually to recognize
progress and add new or revised information.
Vision
The Flood Map Modernization State Business Plan should define the role your state is
willing to take in the modernization and long-term maintenance of flood hazard maps.
Identify the legal authority provided by your state legislature, or if none, what authorities
are needed to assume a role. The State Plan should explain the benefits your state will
realize by taking a proactive role, not only in the modernization of flood maps, but also
in the long-term maintenance of the maps. Identify all state agencies that will be
involved and the role each would play. Explain relationships between the state and
local or regional agencies that are Cooperating Technical Partners with FEMA, or are
actively involved in the modernization and maintenance of their flood maps.
Distinguish between activities directly related to the State Coordination of the NFIP and
activities related to flood map modernization and maintenance. Identify other state
agencies that have expertise and responsibilities that can support the NFIP coordinating
office. Examples may include state GIS and mapping agencies, departments of
transportation, emergency management, and others. Identify the federal agencies that
provide service within your state that can be expected to partner in the modernization or
maintenance of flood maps. Federal agencies may include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Reclamation, or U.S.
Geological Survey.
State Role in Map Mod
The following table lists activities associated with map modernization and maintenance.
The state can assume the responsibility for any or all of these activities. These
activities are in addition to states’ traditional role under the CAP-SSSE in need
assessment, mapping prioritization, community outreach, and local ordinance review.
This plan focuses on activities associated with oversight/program management vs. CTP
activities which are associated with project-related DFIRM production. Following is
the list of “management” activities FEMA indicated were fundable in the CAP-MAP
application materials.
4
Table 1 – Fundable CAP-MAP Activities
FUNDABLE CAP MAPPING PHASE II ACTIVITIES
1
ACTIVITY
Digital Base Map
Inventory
PARTNERS
Regional Agency
State Agency
DESCRIPTION
The Partner performs an investigation and provides
an inventory of base maps meeting FEMA
specifications for NFIP communities in a particular
region or State.
Digital Base Map Data
Sharing
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
The Partner supplies a base map for use in producing
a DFIRM. The base map will comply with FEMA
minimum accuracy requirements and be distributable
by FEMA to the public in hardcopy and electronic
formats.
DFIRM Maintenance1
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
The Partner assumes responsibility for long-term,
periodic maintenance of the DFIRM. This can
include base map and/or flood hazard information.
Hydrologic and
Hydraulic Review
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
The Partner reviews hydrologic and hydraulic studies
prepared for FEMA-funded flood data updates and/or
map revisions processed under Part 65 of the NFIP
regulations. The review focuses on compliance with
the technical and regulatory requirements contained
in Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard
Mapping Partners, the pertinent NFIP regulations, as
well as standard accepted engineering practices.
Assessment of
Community Mapping
Needs (to support
FEMA’s Mapping Needs
Update Support System MNUSS)
Regional Agency
State Agency
Technical Standards
Agreement
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
The Partner performs a detailed
community-by-community assessment of mapping
needs for every mapped (including flood data
updates and map maintenance) and unmapped NFIP
community within its jurisdiction. The Partner then
submits the results of the assessment to FEMA for
inclusion in the MNUSS database.
The Partner works with FEMA to adopt specific
technical standards or processes appropriate for local
conditions for NFIP flood mapping purposes.
Information Technology
Systems
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
Develop and maintain an Information Technology
System to archive, organize, distribute, and otherwise
manage effective digital FIRMs, preliminary digital
FIRMs, and/or underlying backup data (eg, digital
FIRM database, engineering models, etc). The
system should distribute this data in an electronic
format (eg, web-based, CD-ROM, etc) to the public.
LOMC review and issuance can be included under this category.
5
Outreach
Outreach (continued)
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
Informational Mailing - Identify recipients of mass
mailing; procure brochures from FEMA (assumes
one existing tri-fold brochure in self-mailing format,
no envelopes required); print mailing labels; affix
proper postage; and take to post office for mailing.
Community Meeting - Determine when and where
the meeting will be held; identify staff roles and
responsibilities; advertise the meeting; prepare
agenda and other handout and presentation materials
to explain the purpose of the meeting and the
mapping project; provide on-site meeting support to
explain the purpose of the mapping project,
opportunities for involvement, and how to provide
comments; provide opportunity for the public to
submit comments; provide on-site logistics and
meeting support; and develop evaluation form,
distribute, and assess results.
Website Posting - Develop a new website to provide
information geared towards the general public,
technical audiences, and other stakeholder groups
(such as the FEMA website which guides users based
on their interest in the maps such as one button for
property owners, one for lenders, insurers, etc.);
provide an overview of the mapping project; access
to preliminary and final FIRMs; contacts and links
for further information on FEMA, State, and other
local websites.
Multi-Media Promotional Activities - Develop
press release using template provided by FEMA;
contact local media and place press release; follow
up with media contacts periodically to encourage
them to use pres releases in articles, cover key events
through live footage of community meetings or other
key events; contact radio and television stations to
request announcements to advertise meetings; offer
to provide knowledgeable officials for interview on
radio and/or television talk shows; write articles and
publish in trade journals, newsletters, other existing
publications that are available to the public; and
develop fact sheets, announcements, or brochures
and distribute through public libraries, schools,
and/or locally-sponsored public events.
FEMA has indicated that this list is not intended to be comprehensive and that other
“management” activities can be included in State Business Plan submittals. Following
are some additional activities the State may wish to also consider:
6
Table 2 - Additional CAP-MAP Fundable Activities
ADDITIONAL CAP MAPPING PHASE II ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY
Digital Topographic
Map/Data Inventory
Govt. Entity
Regional Agency
State Agency
DESCRIPTION
The Government Entity performs an investigation
and provides an inventory of topographic data
available for NFIP communities in a particular region
or State.
Digital Topographic Data
Sharing
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
The Government Entity supplies a topographic data
set for use in producing a DFIRM. The data set will
be distributable by FEMA to the public in hardcopy
and electronic formats.
Statewide Prioritization
of Mapping Projects
State Agency
Contract Negotiation/
Management
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
The State in concert with Regional Agencies and
Communities in the State ranks the projects taking
into account FEMA’s Performance Measures
(Metrics) and other measures the States feels are
needed to rank the mapping needs of the State.
The Government Entity completes the CTP
application materials, drafts project specific Mapping
Activity Statements and Statements of Work,
establishes a list of pre-qualified contractors, awards
contracts, reviews change orders, and manages
contracts.
Due Process Activities
Regional Agency
State Agency
Management of Flood
Map Modernization and
Maintenance Program
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
DFIRM review
Community
Regional Agency
State Agency
The Government Entity conducts due process
activities associated with map adoption including
Time & Cost Meetings, Final Meetings and the
processing of appeals.
The Government Entity establishes mechanisms to
receive funding, update annual Map Modernization
Business Plans and report progress to FEMA.
The Government Entity reviews DFIRMs prepared
for FEMA-funded flood data updates and/or map
revisions processed under Part 65 of the NFIP
regulations. The review focuses on compliance with
the technical and regulatory requirements contained
in Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard
Mapping Partners, the pertinent NFIP regulations, as
well as standard accepted GIS data base and
cartographic practices.
7
INVOLVING CTP’S AND OTHER AGENCIES IN THE STATE BUSINESS PLAN
FEMA’s Cooperating Technical Partners Program2 is an important initiative for funding
State, Regional and Local Partners conducting flood mapping projects that should be
recognized by states when writing their business plan. The following is taken from the
current DRAFT “CTP Guidance Document for FY 2004” located at
www.fema.gov/fhm/ctp_main.shtm
“One of the key objectives of the FEMA Map Modernization Plan is to increase
local involvement in, and ownership of, the flood mapping process. To meet this
objective, FEMA developed and implemented the Cooperating Technical
Communities initiative, now the Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Program.
As technologies have improved and applications have expanded dramatically,
many State agencies, regional agencies, and local communities have become
technologically sophisticated and have invested significant resources in flood
hazard identification . . .”
“The following are beneficial reasons for partnering with State, regional, and local
organizations to produce National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps:



The data used for local permitting and planning will be the basis for the NFIP
map, facilitating more efficient floodplain management.
The CTP Program provides the opportunity to interject a tailored, local focus into
a national Program; thus, where unique conditions may exist, the special
approaches to flood hazard identification that may be necessary can be taken.
The partnership mechanism provides the opportunity to pool resources and
extend the productivity of limited public funds.”
“In support of the CTP Program, FEMA has committed to the following:





Recognize the contributions made by FEMA’s State, regional, and local
community Partners by providing timely and accurate flood hazard information.
Maximize the use of Partner contributions as a means of leveraging limited public
funds fully while maintaining essential NFIP standards.
Fully integrate Partners into the flood hazard data development process with the
corresponding authorities and responsibilities.
Provide training and technical assistance to Partners when appropriate.
Facilitate mentoring to increase capability for existing and potential Partners.”
Many local and regional CTP’s have data and expertise that can significantly contribute
to a better map modernization product. These may include GIS base maps, recent
topography and rectified ortho photography, in-kind staff capability, and some level of
funding. In some instances, the local or regional entities may be able to assume the full
responsibility for the map modernization effort within their jurisdiction.
2
Activities associated with Flood Hazard Mapping Projects are included as Appendix B
8
As states draft their business plans, it is important for them to identify and reach out to
local and regional CTP’s within their state, as well as other local and regional agencies
that have the potential to be CTP’s, in order to ensure maximum coordination with them,
and maximum contribution of their resources and capabilities. . In addition, it is
important to include CTP and other local available resources to properly document
contributions eligible for cost share.
The capabilities of local and regional entities vary greatly. There are approximately
20,000 communities participating in the NFIP, and only about 170 are CTP’s. It is
understood that development of CTP agreements with all 20,000 participating
communities is not a viable alternative
Therefore, State Business Plans should recognize and support continuation of the direct
relationships between local and regional Cooperating Technical Partners and FEMA
Regions, including the writing of business plans in support of Map Modernization and
other flood hazard mapping projects. States should include the local and regional CTP
business plans in their respective State Business Plans to assure the National Business
Plan is complete, comprehensive, and coordinated. Where state standards are more
stringent than federal standards, the state should be a party to those CTP agreements.
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN RELATIONSHIP TO FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING
Hazard mitigation is any sustained action that reduces the flood risk to citizens and
minimizes damages to structures, infrastructure, and other resources. The first step in
any hazard mitigation plan is to map and identify the hazards. Modern, GIS based flood
maps are an invaluable part of an effective hazard mitigation plan. By providing
accurate topography and flood inundation information in a GIS framework, local,
regional, and state officials can overlay information about transportation, development,
hazardous materials, and other data to identify and prioritize mitigation actions.
Hazard identification is a key first step, and one of the seven building blocks, in adopting
a No Adverse Impact approach to floodplain management. In short, good maps lead to
good mitigation decisions, saving millions in taxpayer dollars and helping to protect lives
and property.
Just being identified as being located in a floodplain is not good enough for informed
mitigation decisions. You also need to know the depth and frequency of flooding to
determine whether a mitigation action is cost effective. You need to know what is at
risk. New DFIRMS will allow planners to make those determinations. This will result in
more cost effective distribution of mitigation dollars.
Current flood maps contain no flood depth information unless separate topographic data
is overlain. There is only a limited ability to overlay property information. Modern
DFIRMS will not only contain those capabilities, but will help with the utilization of other
environmental and natural hazard data.
9
DFIRM data will generate beneficial spin-offs in areas of hazard response and
mitigation. Maps can be developed as interactive, multi-hazard digital maps. Linkages
may be built into the mapping databases that allow access to engineering backup
material, such as hydrologic and hydraulic models, flood profiles, data tables, digital
elevation models, and to structure-specific data, such as digital elevation certificates
and even digital photographs of bridges and culverts. Data can also be used to develop
dam and levee break analyses.
The database can also support a wide variety of existing and visionary water resource
and environmental applications, including low flow hydrology that can be used for
development of total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and for drought management.
Stream flow and velocity data can be used to develop pollution and hazardous material
transport and concentration models. Stream and topographic data can be used for
stormwater management purposes. Fish and Wildlife management can utilize digitized
flood hazard maps that can be overlain with habitat mapping and wetland information in
order to help to identify key habitat management areas. Stream and watershed
restoration efforts can also make beneficial use of DFIRMs. Whether the need for
restoration results from human practices like mining, logging, agriculture, or
urbanization, or from natural instability, or both, detailed floodplain information is
invaluable in developing long-term restoration programs.
Some communities are already using DFIRM data to interact with hazard warning
systems. For instance, Schoharie County, New York is using their DFIRM data to plug
into a 911 warning system. When upstream gages indicate that flood conditions are
imminent in the flood prone Schoharie Creek, the GIS system computes one of many
flood elevation scenarios and telephones all homes and businesses within the expected
inundation zone. In communities subject to flash flooding, where warning time may be
very short, hydrologic and hydraulic data developed as part of DFIRM preparation can
be linked with real-time meteorological data to provide advance warning to those who
may be in harm’s way.
It is recommended that State Hazard Mitigation Plans include information on the use of
digital flood maps for hazard mitigation purposes. It is further recommended that State
Business Plan include the development of a mechanism to use Map Modernization
products for hazard mitigation plan development within each state.
STATE FPM STRATEGIC PLAN: RELATIONSHIP TO MAPPING
The 2002 ASFPM survey of NFIP State Coordinators found that states recognize the
need to develop state comprehensive floodplain management strategic plans that
outline the needs and priorities for effective floodplain management to meet flood loss
reduction goals. Effective strategies are recognized by FEMA to vary from state to
state. As such, FEMA’s 2003 CAP-SSSE guidance contains a requirement that each
state, working with its FEMA regional office, must develop a comprehensive floodplain
management strategic plan for effective floodplain management that outlines program
priorities for a five-year period from FY 2005 through FY 2009. Each Plan would
10
establish a roadmap that the state would follow to achieve greater NFIP floodplain
management compliance at the community level.
The requirement for FPM 5-Year Plans coincides with increased Map Modernization
funds for states. Whether a state manages all flood mapping through a CTP
agreement, or leaves map contracting to FEMA, or takes some role in between, there
will still be a significant increase in each State’s workload for map prioritization, project
scoping, community outreach, and local ordinance review and adoption. Conversely,
the community outreach required as part of Map Modernization provides an excellent
opportunity to promote sound floodplain management, compliance with NFIP
regulations and encouragement of more restrictive floodplain standards, as well as No
Adverse Impact approaches.
Flood Map Modernization State Business Plans will detail state activities and priorities in
Map Modernization. Mapping goes hand in hand with floodplain management. FEMA’s
guidance for State Business Plans includes the following components that should also
be considered as part of the FPM 5-Year Plan:




Includes an integrated partnership, composed of multiple States, local and/or
tribal agencies/organizations that contribute to or guide the development of
projects.
Supports the NFIP and sound mitigation for other hazards throughout the state.
Has, or is in the process of developing, a plan for communicating information on
the status of flood hazard data updates within the state to impacted communities
and property owners.
Includes an outreach strategy for continuously educating citizenry about flood
insurance, flood plain management, and other applicable hazard mitigation
efforts.
Map modernization activities that are closely associated with CAP-SSSE activities
include:




Assessment of Community Mapping Needs, including a detailed community-bycommunity assessment of mapping needs for every NFIP community.
Outreach, including mass mailings, community meetings, website postings and
multi-media promotional activities.
Local Ordinance review
Local Ordinance adoption monitoring and assistance
Conversely, the goal of the FPM 5-Year Plan is to achieve greater floodplain
management compliance. Floodplain management compliance is currently hindered in
locations that have substandard maps, or no maps. Map Modernization will provide the
most basic tool needed to improve floodplain management compliance and reduce the
risk to life and property. An effective FPM 5-Year Plan, then, should include measures
to support Map Modernization and delivery of mapping products to local communities.
11
MAPPING GOALS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FEMAs annual targets for the “Sub-Program Element Performance Measures” can
provide initial guidance for the preparation of a multi-year schedule for the preparation
of new maps under Map Modernization. States, regional, and local entities are being
encouraged by FEMA to play a role in achieving those goals. The multi-year schedule
of mapping projects contained in each State Business Plan should develop a plan that
addresses all the states needs and should include copies of any regional/local business
plan as an appendix. At the conclusion of fiscal year 2009, FEMA will be expected to
have met the target for 2009, so each program year will need to meet its objectives to
complete this program in 2009. The annual targets developed by FEMA are listed
below.
Table 3 – Annual FEMA/DHS Targets for Sub-Program Performance Measures
1
2
3
4
Sub-Program Element
Performance Measure(s)
Percentage of population that has
digital GIS flood hazard data
available on-line
Percentage of population that has
adopted modernized GIS flood
maps
Leveraged effort toward digital GIS
flood hazard data
Percentage of Map Mod funding put
through to CTPs
2004
20
2005
50
2006
65
2007
75
2008
85
2009
100
10
20
35
50
70
90
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
35
45
50
60
FEMA based the above performance measures on population, housing units, NFIP
policies, claims, repetitive loss properties and claims, and disaster declarations since
1965. The database, used to rank all participating communities and establish funding
priorities for FY2003, is available from FEMA. An overview of FEMA's FY03 budget
decisions is included in Appendix B.
The needs assessment by each state should take into account the following criteria:
 Total miles of stream (or coastal shoreline) by county if available; (A table of total
stream miles by state is included in Appendix C)
 Miles of stream (or coastal shoreline) that have been mapped by detailed study
methods and
o Miles that need to be updated
o Miles that are acceptable
 Miles of stream (or coastal shoreline) that have been mapped by approximate
study methods and
o Miles that need to be studied by detailed methods
o Miles that should be studied by limited detail study methods
o Miles that are acceptable
12

Miles of stream (or coastal shoreline) that have not been mapped by any method,
and
o Miles that should be studied by detailed study methods
o Miles that should be studied by less than detailed study methods
o Miles that should be studied by approximate methods
o Miles that do not require a map*
(* There are vast areas of the country that are undeveloped and will remain
undeveloped. Flood hazard maps are not needed for these areas. Examples are
Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in
Minnesota.)
2002 Map Modernization Implementation Plan
During the spring and summer of 2002 states devoted a lot of effort, in many cases with
financial support from FEMA, to the preparation of statewide Map Modernization
Implementation Plans (MMIP’s). Within its MMIP, each state developed mapping
priorities, based on criteria required at the time by FEMA and on those criteria that were
important to the state and its local jurisdictions. In addition, cost estimates for the
completion of each prioritized mapping project were developed, to arrive at a total
estimated statewide budget. The needs assessment should be used to update the
MMIPs.
FEMA’s performance measures were based on population as a major criterion. States,
in developing a multi-year business plan, should consider other criteria. Criteria that
were developed as part of the MMIP report can serve as a useful starting point for
prioritizing efforts. They should still reflect state, regional, and local concerns in addition
to population. Some potential criteria are listed below:








Population growth (Building permits may be used as an indicator of growth.
Information can be obtained at:
http://www.census.gov/const/www/permitsindex.html)
Participation in the NFIP
Age of hydrologic and hydraulic data
Rating in the 2002 MMIP analysis, or the revised MMIP
Possibility of leveraging and funding partnerships with contributions from local or
regional agencies
Availability of detailed topographic maps
Proportion of specific flood hazard areas on needs list that are “problem areas”
(Use Disaster Declarations or number of LOMCs as indicators)
Mapping of unique flood hazards (alluvial fans, ice jam flooding, unstable or
erosional streams, watersheds impacted by wildfires, etc.)
13
How to Determine the Appropriate Level of Mapping Detail
Given the funding realities and the realities of benefits vs. costs of mapping various
flood prone lands, states must go through a prioritization process to determine which
flood prone areas should be mapped or remapped at a detailed level, which areas
should be mapped at a level less than detailed, and which areas should not be mapped
at all. States should involve local and regional agencies that can contribute resources
and knowledge to the process of defining and prioritizing flood prone areas.
The first step in the process is to determine the source material (FIS work maps, local
studies, other Federal agency studies, Letter of Map Revision documents) for all of the
mapped floodplains on the current FIRMs. The second step is to determine how much
of the source material is still valid and can be directly digitized and utilized without
further technical analysis.
The next step in the prioritization process is to define the levels of mapping detail for
those flooding sources that do not have valid source material available. The availability
of topographic information will have a significant impact.
There are two nationwide
topographic data sets developed by USGS – the contour lines on the 7 ½ minute
quadrangle map (quads) and Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). The DEMs are derived
from the contour lines on the quads and are degraded in the process. ASFPM offers
the following guidance regarding the appropriate uses of different levels of topographic
data.
Table 4 – Topographic Data Suitability
Topographic Data Source Suitability
Detailed Terrain
Acceptable for hydraulic modeling and floodplain
mapping
USGS Quads
Limited use for hydraulic modeling and floodplain
mapping. Caution should be excercised when using
this data source as it may lead to large errors
USGS DEM
Not suitable for hydraulic computations or mapping
ASFPM passed a resolution related to map quality. See Appendix D.
Recognizing the great topographic, meteorological, hydrological, and hydraulic
variability in the country, ASFPM offers the following definitions as general guidance.
14
Table 5 – Mapping Detail
Level of Mapping Detail
Detailed Mapping
Computational
Methodology
A computerized
backwater or coastal
hydraulic analysis
Hydrologic Analysis
Detailed hydrologic
analyses
Topographic information
with a contour interval of
4 feet or less
Topographic Information
Geometric Information
Flood Boundary
Delineation Techniques
Detailed geometric
information at all
hydraulic structures
(bridges, culverts, dams)
Detailed delineation
techniques for relating
computed flood
elevations to ground
elevations in plan view
(digital topographic
mapping)
Less than Detailed
Mapping
A simplified hydraulic
analysis or a coastal
analysis that may or may
not be computerized
Approximate hydrologic
analyses
Best available
topographic information,
at least at the level of a
USGS 7 ½ Minute
Quads3
Simplified4 geometric
information at all
hydraulic structures
(bridges, culverts, dams)
Best available delineation
techniques for relating
estimated or calculated
flood elevations to
ground elevations in plan
view
Each state should define the appropriate levels of mapping detail to be used based on
its unique characteristics. Deviations from the table above may very well be appropriate
in certain states. Once the levels of detail have been defined, then the prioritization
process can begin.
Some of the same criteria previously suggested for prioritizing all of the counties in an
entire state as part of the State Business Plan can also be used for prioritizing flood
prone areas within an individual county. Some additional criteria can be used as well:



Availability of detailed hydrologic, topographic, and/or hydraulic information
Degree of floodplain change (manmade or natural)
Number of engineering problems identified with existing information
3
Another USGS topographic data set is the USGS Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). These data are adequate for
hydrologic modeling but are not adequate hydraulic modeling or floodplain delineation unless the delineations are
revised using the USGS 7 ½ minute quadrangle maps as a final step in the process.
4
Due to the backwater effects of these structures they can not be ignored, however a simplified model could be
developed that assumes the opening is blocked and that there is weir flow over the road.
15
The prioritization of flood prone areas within a county by level of mapping detail is really
a part of the county scoping process. A recommended starting point for scoping within
a given county is a countywide “index” map. The map should include the following
information:






County boundaries
Municipalities, with their boundaries
Streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, coastal and shoreline areas, and major
drainage and irrigation ditches
Major highways, railroads, and airports
Boundaries of public lands (i.e. National Forests, National Parks, BLM, state
parks)
Boundaries of USGS quadrangle maps
The NSP will be providing tools for the scoping process that may help with this process
as well.
Through meetings with local officials within the county, state officials can identify on the
county index map all of the flood-prone areas identified in the 2002 MMIP report for the
state and any other flood prone areas that are recommended for some kind of floodplain
mapping. Suggested steps in countywide prioritization are listed below:







Use of base GIS statewide assessments based on population, growth, proximity
to primary and secondary transportation corridors, and basic land use data;
Come to agreement about flood prone areas that already have sufficient source
materials, or that will not be studied;
Identify flood prone areas near and within municipalities and other population
concentrations and determine initially which areas require detailed floodplain
mapping;
Identify any other flood prone areas outside municipalities and other population
concentrations that may, for reasons besides population, require detailed
floodplain mapping;
Estimate the costs of utilizing the existing source material:
Using appropriate unit costs, estimate the cost of detailed mapping for all of the
initially identified detailed study areas;
Identify all remaining flood prone areas to be studied, apply appropriate unit
costs for less than detailed floodplain mapping, and add those estimated costs to
the estimated costs for detailed mapping
ESTIMATING THE COSTS
There are two categories of costs that should be considered by any state or local entity
participating in Floodplain Map Modernization:


Program administration (management) costs, and
Project (mapping) costs.
16
The purpose of writing the Flood Map Modernization State Business Plan is to identify
the level of involvement and responsibility that a state or local entity would like to have
over the mapping process. In the State Business Plan current program management
capabilities are to be identified, along with any future enhancements or additional staff
needed. However, in order to estimate the effort required for program management, the
proposed mapping project effort should first be identified.
There is no official method for estimating costs. Spreadsheets are provided in
Attachment No. 1 as a guide, but may not include all study and program management
costs. Attachment No. 1 can be accessed at the following link:
http://www.floods.org/Files/SBP/Attachment_1.xls
The following items are a good starting point for cost calculation.
Background Information
Individuals interested in estimating project costs will save time and effort in the long run
by reviewing the overall mapping process described in FEMA’s Guidelines and
Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, dated April 2003. The guidelines
may be downloaded from the Internet at: http://www.fema.gov/fhm/gs_main.shtm.
Topics such as project selection, scoping and project size, typical map formats, etc., are
discussed in both the introduction and in Volume 1. Detailed guidance for mapping can
be found in the appendices. Any Mapping Activity Statements and subcontractor
agreements will incorporate the Guidelines by reference.
Mapping Project Costs
The first step in calculating project costs is to identify the project scope. Begin by
selecting the geographic area to be mapped. FEMA’s fundamental building block for
mapping projects typically is the countywide map. Some efficiency may be realized if
county projects can be grouped together on a watershed basis.
Simple Cost Estimation Methods
Some FEMA regional offices use all-purpose cost calculations. For example, one
FEMA Region assigns a dollar value to studies for each county, based on population:
Table 6 – Cost Calculations
County Size
Study
Cost
Large Population County
$270,000
Medium
Population $135,000
County
Low Population County
$50,000
Preliminary
Processing
$160,000
$80,000
Effective
Map
Processing
$130,000
$65,000
$30,000
$30,000
17
Another regional office uses a formula based on county area and population density.
These simplified calculations would be expected to vary from region to region,
depending on local topography and population differences. Contact your FEMA
Regional office to get details for this method, so that your study requirements are similar
to theirs.
Unit Costs
A more exact method of cost estimation would be to calculate study and publication
costs based on unit prices. The quantities required for this estimation are simple:
Table 7 – Quantity Units
Unit Description Unit
Stream Reach
Length
Shoreline Length
Alluvial Fan Area
Panels
Comments
Generally, all streams draining one square mile or
Miles
more. Typically divided into study types: detailed,
approximate, conversion of existing detailed, etc.
Miles
For coastal areas (on oceans or the Great Lakes).
Square Refers to active deposition/erosion areas.
Miles
Rural panels will match USGS 7.5-minute
quadrangle maps (scale 1” = 2,000’).
Total
Urban maps are divided into quarter quadrangles
(scale 1” = 1,000’), or quarter quarter quadrangles
(scale 1” = 500’).
As a simplified approach, some individuals will
assume all panels will be published as quarter
quadrangles (scale 1” = 1,000’).
These quantities are usually calculated from GIS information. If better information is not
available, an individual could calculate them using a ruler and paper maps of a vicinity.
In October 2002 FEMA published Estimating the Value of Partner Contributions to Flood
Mapping Projects: A "Blue Book" with prices for typical pay items. The purpose of the
"Blue Book" was not to set prices, but to estimate the value of partner contributions. The
unit prices were considered typical costs that FEMA would incur by contracting for
mapping and publication from a Mapping Coordination Contractor (MCC) or regional
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contractor.
Local pricing may vary quite a bit from Blue Book prices. In areas with simple Midwest
geomorphology Approximate Zone A study costs typically vary between $300 and $700
per stream mile (compared with the national average of $1,400 from the Blue Book).
Detailed study costs vary greatly depending on the complexity of bridges and other
obstructions, and the potential political battle involved with identifying a floodway.
18
Three tables are included in Attachment 1 (as Excel spreadsheets) that show how
estimated costs may be summarized for a project. Table 1.1 is a blank boilerplate that
may be filled out for a particular project. Table 1.2 is a completed hypothetical example.
Table 1.3 is a similar completed example with additional notes and comments
Note that these example tables calculate the leverage for the project, by comparing the
estimated study costs with the "Blue Book" value. The leverage is calculated as both a
percentage and a ratio:
Percent Leverage
=
Partner Contribution / Blue Book Value x 100
Leverage Ratio
=
Blue Book Value / Total Cost to FEMA
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES
Table 1 lists a number of project management activities that must be accounted for,
over and above the actual mapping study costs. While your list may vary, do not
underestimate the potential cost of tasks such as training of staff, meetings with FEMA
and consultants, travel time and expenses, and keeping local officials informed through
mailings, phone calls, and meetings. Individuals may choose to use their own format for
calculation of these items.
By summing the total hours for program management, the number of additional
personnel (full-time equivalencies) may be estimated.
CTP AND MAS ACTIVITIES
The Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) program is a recent innovation to encourage
state, local, and regional agencies to play an active role in map modernization and
maintenance. FEMA's contracting procedures have created challenges for states and
other CTPs by requiring the submittal of detailed information before it can reasonably be
developed.
In order for state, local and regional agencies to participate as a Cooperating Technical
Partner (CTP) FEMA needs to treat them as extensions of their staff, not as a
contractor.
The following process, if accepted by FEMA, would eliminate many of the challenges
and encourage more state, local and regional agencies to actively participate in
mapping activities.
Step 1. Overarching CTP Agreement with FEMA
Negotiate “overarching” CTP agreement with FEMA. This agreement simply
says that the state or non-state CTP will perform mapping activities for FEMA,
with those activities to be specified by annual CTP implementation agreements
for each program year and MAS language for each individual mapping project.
19
This agreement identifies the players and describes in general terms what they
will be doing.
Step 2. Annual CTP Implementation Agreement with FEMA
Negotiate annual CTP implementation agreement with FEMA. The annual
agreement should be based on the State Business Plan, as it is updated on an
annual basis. It should identify all of the communities or counties to be studied
during the particular program year, and a rough estimate of the number of stream
miles, and coastal miles, that are:
 Mapped based on detailed studies - and how many of those miles need to be
updated
 Mapped based on approximate studies - and how many of those miles need
to be updated - and whether by detailed study methods, limited detailed study
methods, or approximate methods
 Unmapped - and how many of those miles need to be mapped and what
methods should be use
The agreement should also include a rough estimate for each community or
county of the number of map panels needed at each mapping scale (1” = 2000’,
1” = 1000’, and 1” = 500’) to provide the necessary map coverage for that entity.
Conservative cost estimates should be based on "rule of thumb" numbers,
FEMA's Blue Book, or some other source. This should not require an in-depth
analysis or be an overly time consuming effort. The cost estimate may also
include funds to develop the Mapping Activity Statements in Step 4.
FEMA should make a commitment for a CTP agreement based on the estimated
scope of work and cost. If the costs are beyond FEMA’s budget, the scope of
work should be adjusted. Regardless of such budgetary considerations and any
other legal considerations, FEMA needs to provide a written commitment that
funding will be forthcoming in order for the state, local or regional agency to
progress to the next step and be able to sign a contract for services.
Step 3: Select Mapping Contractor
Identify and select the organizations or consultants that will be hired to assist in
the project, assuming some of the work will be out-sourced. It is recommended
that a Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) process be used to select a mapping
contractor.
The CTP will also identify the other governmental entities that may provide
mapping resources or additional funding to share with the CTP’s resources and
funds. These entities may be other state agencies, regional agencies, local
agencies, or even federal agencies other than FEMA.
Step 4: Mapping Activity Statement (MAS)
Once the selection of a mapping contractor has been made, a scoping meeting is
held with the communities that are going to be studied and the selected
20
consultant. This is the step where the details of the project(s) are defined
sufficiently to complete FEMA's MAS template. With the input of community
officials a detailed scope of work can be developed identifying exactly how many
miles of stream (or coast) should be studied. This will include identification of
miles mapped, what methods are used for each reach, how many map panels
will be produced, and what resources are available (i.e.: base maps, existing
models, bridge plans, etc.) for each project. FEMA and the NSP should be
invited to attend the scoping meeting.
The scope of work between the CTP and the selected mapping contractor then
becomes the basis for detailed estimates of the number of hours and costs to
complete each project used to complete the MAS. A completed MAS for each
project can then be submitted to FEMA. The CTP is assured that there is
consistency in magnitude of work and associated budget between the MAS with
FEMA and the contract/scope of work with the contractor.
ORGANIZATION AND CONTRACTING MODELS
Identifying Contracting, Technical, and Review Resources
Implementing your State Business Plan will require substantial resources. The effort
will be substantial whether the work is accomplished through in-house work, through
outsourcing, or through a combination of those two approaches. In order to determine
the most appropriate organizational and contracting models, you will first need to
identify the resources available to you. Local and regional agencies, particularly CTPs,
can provide many of the needed resources for their areas. In some instances, local or
regional CTPs will be capable of assuming the entire responsibility for Map Mod for their
areas. In those instances, the State Business Plan should include the CTP’s business
plan and areas of responsibility.
To assume responsibility for mapping technical and administrative resources that will be
needed. Some of those skills are listed below:










Management and database skills for annual prioritization of counties
Communicating with appropriate officials and conducting of meetings for scoping
Cartographic, GIS and engineering for scoping
Development of contracts with specific scopes of work
Gathering of, refinement of, and implementation of base mapping, topographic
information and GIS for developing DFIRMS
Hydrology and hydraulic analysis and delineation of floodplain boundaries
Management of engineering and GIS resources
Management of budgets
QA/QC review of draft information (technical, database, and graphical review)
Completion of maps and reports to meet appropriate specifications
21
There are some state, regional, and local agencies that have the skills listed above inhouse, and some that have very few of those skills. The table below identifies the
fundable CAP mapping Phase II activities listed in FEMA’s Business Plan guidance
materials along with the additional activities suggested on page 8. The state, regional,
or local agency will have to estimate the person-hours needed to complete each task
category and the resources available. Outsourced resources need to make up any
shortfall.
There are 15 task categories listed below. Some of these activities are statewide
activities while some (e.g. H&H review) can be applied to specific projects. Since
FEMA’s guidance states that funding under CAP-MAP requires a 25% match, but there
is no match required for CTP projects, a State may wish to limit this analysis to activities
(or portions of activities) that can not be applied to specific mapping projects. States will
have to estimate how many counties will be studied in each program year and analyze
the resource needs to many all of the projects. Completing the table below every year
for all of the counties in that year will guide the state in determining its resource needs.
Table 8 – Summary of Resource Needs
Task Category
Estimate of
Resources
Needed
Available
State
Resources
Digital Base Map
Inventory
Digital Base Map Data
Sharing
DFIRM Maintenance5
Hydrologic and
Hydraulic Review
Assessment of
Community Mapping
Needs
Technical Standards
Agreement
Information Technology
Systems
Outreach
Digital Topographic
5
LOMC review and issuance can be included under this category.
22
Available
non-State
Resources
Outsourced
Resources
Needed to
Complete
Work
Map/Data Inventory
Digital Topographic
Data Sharing
Statewide Prioritization
of Mapping Projects
Contract Negotiation/
Management
Due Process Activities
Management of Flood Map
Modernization and
Maintenance Program
DFIRM review
In preparing the State Business Plan, tables like the one above should be developed for
each program year. A table should also be developed for the long-term maintenance of
maps after funding levels return to pre-Map Mod levels.
Organizational Structures
The following organizational charts are included for consideration.
Organizational Structure #1 FUNCTIONAL:
Project Manager
Director
Flood Program Branch Chief
Hydrology Branch Chief
GIS Program Branch Chief
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
23
Organizational Structure #2 PROJECTIZED ALIGNMENT
Director
Mapping Manager
River Manager
Dam Safety Manager
Hydrology Staff
Staff
Staff
GIS Staff
Staff
Staff
Web Manager
Organizational Structure #3 MATRIX
Director
Hydrology Branch Chief
Flood Program Branch Chief
GIS Branch Chief
Mgr. of Project Managers
Staff
Staff
Staff
P.M.
Staff
Staff
Staff
P.M.
24
Alternative Methods of Contracting for Services
There are two basic methods of performing Map Modernization work. One method is to
perform the work in-house, and the other method is to perform some or all of the work
through contracted services. ASFPM assumes that most agencies intend to perform at
least some of the work through contracted services. This subsection addresses the
specific issue of contracting with outside consultants and agencies to provide Map
Modernization services.
Two options for contracting for services will be examined:


In-house management: The agency manages contracts with all outside
consultants
Out-sourced Management: An outside consultant serves as "staff" and manages
other outside consultants hired by the agency to perform the project-related
functions
Which option is selected will depend primarily on the availability of necessary resources.
Agencies that choose the first model will have determined that they have at least
enough resources to manage outside consultants on a day-to-day, project-by-project
basis. They may perform engineering and GIS review, graphical and database QA/QC
review, and final approval of the work before submittal to FEMA. Agencies that choose
the second model will have determined that they essentially need additional staff (in the
form of a consultant) to perform most management functions.
In-House Management Model
The management of Map Modernization work represents a wide range of commitment
for the managing agency. At the basic level of commitment, the managing agency will
perform the following functions:





Comprehensive prioritization of mapping needs and projects
Preparation of Mapping Activity Statements with FEMA
Contract Management of engineering and GIS resources
Management of budget
Annual update of State Business Plan
At the next level of commitment, the managing agency may add one or more of the
following functions depending on its in-house capability and capacity:





Scoping for individual projects
Gathering and refining base mapping, topographic, and GIS resources
Panel layout and preparation of graphical information
Database completion
Graphical and database QA/QC
25


Development of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
Engineering QA/QC
The highest level of commitment by the managing agency (while still making use of
outside consultants) will involve conducting some of the GIS tasks and some of the
engineering tasks, and, perhaps, some of the work involved in completing the
preliminary DFIRM and submitting the materials to FEMA.
The NSP will be making process and procedural improvements to the program. For
example, the proposed NSP solution will require the submittal of intermediate data, not
just the end products.
Out-sourced Management Model
Management of Map Modernization work by an outside consultant represents a very
different approach. The managing consultant will perform as "staff" and perform some
or all of the following functions:








Recommend prioritization of projects
Scoping for individual projects
Preparation of Mapping Activity Statements with FEMA
Contract Management of other outside engineering and GIS consultants
Management of budget
Graphical and database QA/QC
Engineering QA/QC
Recommend the Annual update of State Business Plan
Essentially, a management consultant will oversee contracts with other outside
consultants retained to perform the studies. To maintain a separation of responsibilities,
and to ensure that QA/QC processes are independent of the project-related tasks,
agency staff or the managing consultant should perform the QA/QC tasks
The following tasks would be performed by outside consultants other than the
managing consultant:





Gathering and refining base mapping, topographic, and GIS resources
Panel layout and preparation of graphical information
Database completion
Development of hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
Completion of preliminary maps, report, and database and submittal to FEMA
26
Training Needs and Resources
In the case of training, the agency will need to identify specific training needs and
available resources for such training. Some specific categories of training are listed
below:
















Program management and development of goals and objectives
Setting of mapping project priorities
Facilitation of meetings
Contracting
Developing Scopes of Work
GIS and base mapping
Topographic mapping
Hydrology
Hydraulics
Budget management
Management of consultants
FEMA technical requirements for graphics and databases in DFIRMs
QA/QC review
Production of FIS reports to accompany DFIRMs
Distribution of electronic information
Updating of electronic information
Some available resources for the training include:








FEMA
Other federal agencies (COE, USGS, NRCS, etc.)
State, regional, local agencies within your state or in neighboring states
ASFPM
Colleges and universities
Statewide and regional professional organizations (floodplain managers, AWRA,
ASCE, etc.)
Consultants in your state
On-line training venues
Strategies for Obtaining Funding
Strategies for obtaining needed funding should be familiar to most agencies, regardless
of their prior history in mapping. Advice about such strategies is available from
neighboring agencies, within their state and outside, and from ASFPM. Examples
include:


Funding legislation from other states or regional/local entities
Funding agreements between other agencies and FEMA
27

Publications and other forms of information promoting additional funding to
elected officials and outlining the consequences of not providing such funding
Maintaining Capability and Capacity
Once an agency has developed the necessary capability and capacity to fulfill its Map
Modernization role, it must work to keep that capability and capacity in place for the
duration of its Map Modernization program. Every program year should begin with a
review of the previous year’s work. Any shortfalls should be examined carefully and
corrective action taken immediately. Then the agency should examine the planned
work for the upcoming year and identify specific problems where capability and capacity
have fallen below necessary levels. Agencies should consult regularly with FEMA, local
entities, regional entities, state agencies, private contractors, and any other parties who
have an interest in Map Modernization and ask them for their viewpoint on capability
and capacity. An annual review and evaluation with all partners is recommended.
STATE BUSINESS PLAN TEMPLATE
The FEMA Template
In September 2003, FEMA released their version of a business plan template for State’s
desiring to be involved in their Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization effort to follow.
The template (Appendix D) was a combined effort of FEMA Headquarters and Regional
Staff. It outlines for key areas that states must address:




Your vision for supporting Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization (Map Mod)
Needs and Plan/Strategy (for a 5-Year period)
Performance Goals/Cost and Schedule Measures (tracking)
Alternatives/Varying Funding Levels
While the FEMA template is a good start for a basic plan, many states have expanded
what needs to be addressed in their state template. This section attempts to build on
the FEMA template and to share the ideas of California and South Carolina with other
states so enhance what they may have already done.
Two State Examples
South Carolina and California are two States that are used as examples. California has
had a state funded mapping program since 1997 with varying degrees of funding.
South Carolina has not had a state funded floodplain management program but has
demonstrated capability and has been gearing up for Multi-Hazard Flood Map
Modernization effort for the past two years.
28
The Approaches
California, is one example of a State that has taken on the task using in-house
capabilities to develop their plan, while other States such as South Carolina have
contracted it out to their plan development to their mapping team contractors with heavy
State involvement.
According to FEMA, less than a third of the States accepted CAP-MAP funds to develop
a plan. Contracting out becomes a necessity when the State commitment is there but
human resources are not present this early in the process. When some States chose
not to develop a plan some FEMA Regions tasked their IDIQ contractor to develop the
plan for the State. Whichever approach is used the State should participate to ensure
their vision, goals, and objectives are clearly represented.
Additional Considerations
South Carolina included the need for team position descriptions, matrix organizational
structure, process flow diagram, development of a procurement plan for IT, identifying
training needs for end users and future sustainability of program to include local level
training needs. The South Carolina outline is included in Appendix E. California took a
much more comprehensive approach tying together the NFIP, Hazard Mitigation
Planning and floodplain mapping as shown in their template in Appendix F.
Long-term Sustainability
As States decide what level of participation they may want to choose they should also
consider in the planning process the long-term sustainability of the program. FEMA
envisions this to be a five-year program funded by Congress, What is your States plan
to sustain this effort beyond the five years?
29
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL MAPPING ADVISORY
COUNCIL’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO FEMA
Partnerships
The Council recommended that FEMA seek partnerships with other federal
agencies, states, and local governments, universities, and private interests to
improve both the maps and the mapping processes.
FEMA has begun developing partnerships with other federal agencies, states,
and local units of government in the production of Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs). These partnerships minimize duplication of effort and result in much
improved maps at lower cost to the National Flood Insurance Program.
FEMA has actively participated in the Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC), which is developing standards for digital mapping. FEMA has adopted
these standards for its digital FIRMs, while coordinating its efforts with the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) in developing standards for FIRMs that will employ
USGS DOQ’s as the base map. In addition, FEMA is coordinating with the
National Geodetic Survey (NGS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to make greater use of Global Positioning Systems in the
mapping processes.
FEMA has begun to coordinate with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to use information generated for licensed hydropower dams in Flood
Insurance Studies (FISs). A wealth of hydrologic and hydraulic data has been
generated by FERC-licensed utilities that would reduce the costs of FISs.
Perhaps most significant, FEMA has developed partnerships with state, local,
and regional governments in establishing a framework to delegate the
maintenance of the maps. FEMA's Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP)
initiative holds great promise to devolve a major federal responsibility to states
and communities that have the resources and the interest in updating and
maintaining maps of their flood-hazard areas. Nurturing partnerships with state,
local, and regional governments will only be possible if FEMA has sufficient
resources to contribute to the process and fulfill its commitments and is able to
provide incentives so states and local government to accept the responsibility.
Base Maps
The Council made several recommendations relative to base maps, the part of a
FIRM that shows the location of landmark features including roads and buildings,
relative to flood-hazard areas. The primary focus of the recommendations was
for FEMA to adopt, and adhere to, a minimum base map standard that will result
in a FIRM that is geographically referenced, positionally accurate, reproducible,
1
and includes the necessary features and attributes that make maps useful
documents.
Base maps form the foundation for Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
They
significantly impact the usefulness of the maps for flood insurance and land-use
regulations. FEMA is not a mapping agency, per se. FEMA is responsible,
however, to provide floodplain information that can be displayed as an overlay
onto other existing maps.
FEMA has adopted a base map standard that meets the Council's
recommendations.
USGS Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQ’s) have
become the default standard base map. In order for this standard to be practical,
every participating community must be included in a current USGS DOQ. , An
increased emphasis on completing coverage in any community where USGS
DOQ’s have not yet been produced, will be necessary.
Some local governments have invested considerable resources to produce maps
for their own use, often with more detail and at a larger scale, than USGS DOQ.
Where such maps meet the minimum standards, they can and should be used as
the backdrop for a FIRM.
Multiple Flood Hazard
The Council recommended including flooding sources not usually depicted on
FIRMs and expanding information about the types and causes of floods. FEMA
has concluded that the law only requires the purchase of flood insurance to areas
subject to floods that can reasonably be determined as 1%-annual-chance flood
events. Consequently very real, and potentially catastrophic, flood events that
occur less frequently are seldom shown on the maps. These events should be
depicted, if for no other reason than for public awareness.
Tsunamis, caused by undersea earthquakes, create flood events primarily along
the west coast, Alaska, and Hawaii. In some areas with very little warning
massive waves can flood land 100 feet or more above sea level. Tsunamiinduced flooding has devastated entire communities, yet such hazard areas are
typically not depicted on FIRMs. There is insufficient data to predict the
frequency of tsunamis, but we can reasonably predict which communities are
most at risk, and this warning should be made public on the maps.
Dams can cause flooding either by improper operation or a sudden catastrophic
failure. The Western Governors’ Association, in its report to Congress in 1999,
highlighted improper or inadequate operation of dams, and the resultant flooding.
The report stated that dam-induced flooding is a significant problem that has
been ignored for too long; inadequate operation can be documented and flooding
that would result from a sudden catastrophic dam failure can be predicted and
mapped and should likewise be depicted on FIRMs. In many instances, studies
2
performed by FERC-licensed utilities are readily available and could be
displayed. The data would be crucial in planning and executing emergency
responses, and could be used to guide new development away from hazardous
areas.
Debris and ice jams cause flood levels to reach heights well above the calculated
Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The increases in BFEs caused by debris and ice
jams are seldom taken into account when flood studies are planned, even though
the study guidelines provide criteria to be followed to identify the extent of these
risks. In scoping FISs, greater attention must be paid to these hazards so that
where they have occurred, or are likely to occur, they can be taken into account
and properly depicted on the FIRM.
Erosion of coastal shorelines must be addressed and mapped. A study,
Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, conducted by the Heinz Center, recommends
that coastal erosion is a serious issue that should be depicted on FIRMs, even if
for no other reason than to raise public awareness. The Council supported these
recommendations.
Rapid and catastrophic erosion of unstable riverbanks should be included when
FISs are conducted and areas subject to erosion hazards are mapped. Unless
prohibited by state law or local regulations it is currently possible to construct and
insure buildings in areas susceptible to high rates of erosion which can damage
or destroy the structure in a very short period of time.
Archiving FIRMs
The Council recommended that FEMA create and maintain, in perpetuity, a
complete archive of maps produced under the NFIP. The archives must include
the supporting background information and studies used to create and update
the map products.
FIRMs and their predecessors, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, have been used
for flood insurance and land-use regulation for over 30 years. Decisions
regarding building permits and the purchase of flood insurance have been made
using maps that, in some instances, are no longer retrievable. It is critical that
superseded maps be archived and retrievable in the event questions or legal
challenges arise in the future. Compilation of a complete archive of existing and
superseded FIRMs is one element of FEMA’s Map Modernization Plan.
Modern Mapping Technologies
The Council recommended that modern methods be employed to create and
update FIRMs.
3
When the NFIP was passed in 1968, computers and computer-aided drafting
programs did not generally exist. The state of the art in map preparation
employed scribing on acetate overlays and photographic reproduction.
Computers in almost every segment of the engineering and mapping industry
have replaced scribing.
Electronically created maps are more economical to store, update, and distribute.
Digital floodplain information would also be far easier to use for other community
purposes. Geographic Information Systems that enable users to perform a
variety of planning and analysis functions on all types of digital, map-related data,
are commonly used in communities throughout the country. The addition of
digital floodplain information to these systems would be extremely valuable in
planning and designing flood protection projects, and analysis and enhancement
of water quality and riparian habitat.
Conversion of FIRMs from paper to electronic medium is a key element of
FEMA's Map Modernization Plan.
Use of Emerging Technologies
In order for the NFIP to remain cost-effective in the future, new technology for the
creation and distribution of map data must be employed in a timely manner.
Included below are some examples of emerging technology, which hold promise
for making flood-hazard mapping less costly and more timely.
Floodplain mapping and the determination of base flood elevations are more
useful and accurate when referenced to a common, well-known coordinate
system. The National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) has been defined
nationwide and should be used as the basis for georeferencing FIRMs and
related digital products. Reliance on the NSRS, coupled with advances in use of
the Global Positioning System (GPS) and emerging remote sensing
technologies, can enable FEMA and its partners to achieve greater efficiency and
economy to support Flood Insurance Rate Maps and the mapping process.
Working with other federal and local government agencies, FEMA can increase
its involvement in demonstrating the applications and efficiencies of GPS and
remote sensing for the National Flood Insurance Program.
Advances in photogrammetry and remote sensing, together with the use of GPS,
also offer the potential for increased efficiencies in topographic mapping and
floodplain delineation. The use of GPS to determine the position of an air- or
space-borne sensor, at the time the image or other information is collected,
opens the door to real-time or near-real-time development of three-dimensional
surface models and orthorectified images. The proliferation of powerful computer
hardware and software is also helping to reduce the amount of time necessary
for processing and interpreting these data.
4
One of the new efficient methods to acquire imagery of the earth is Light
Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), an active remote sensing system that can be
operated in either a profiling or scanning mode using pulses of light to illuminate
the terrain. By accurately measuring the travel time of the laser pulse from the
aircraft to the ground, a highly accurate spot elevation can be calculated.
Depending upon the altitude and speed of the aircraft, along with the laser
repetition rate, it is possible to obtain point densities that would likely take months
to collect using traditional ground survey methods. Likewise, other developing
remote sensing technologies such as synthetic aperture radar and hyperspectral
imagery offers the promise of increased mapping efficiencies that can support
the NFIP.
Internet-based technology to allow the application and distribution of flood-hazard
mapping data is also beginning to become a reality. The Open GIS Consortium,
a group of stakeholders from government, academia, and the private sector, has
been working to make it possible to not only access data over the Internet, but to
enable network-based applications of mapping data. In addition, the distribution
of data over the Internet, even large data sets, is becoming more common and
offers an alternative to FEMA to the storage and distribution of large numbers of
paper FIRMs and associated information.
Flood Insurance Rate Map Updating and Maintenance
The Council recommended that FEMA update and maintain FIRMs to reflect
current conditions, corporate boundaries, and flooding sources. The Council also
recommended that, where appropriate, future-conditions hydrologic analyses be
used for updating FIRMS. Use of future-conditions hydrology will extend the
maps’ shelf life and reduce the costs of map maintenance. It will also provide an
additional degree of assurance that new structures will be protected from
flooding.
Public Awareness and Education
The Council recommended that FEMA expand current public involvement efforts
by developing a proactive, long-term, public awareness and educational program
that focuses on the need for improved mapping of flood-hazard areas. Funding
is needed for a well-designed program to educate the public about the risks
posed by flood hazards and the values and benefits of good mapping will foster
support for improving and updating maps of flood-hazard areas.
Unnumbered A-Zones
The Council recommended that FEMA take steps to improve the floodplain
delineations depicted as Unnumbered A-Zones. Of all the miles of rivers and
lakes that have been mapped by FEMA, less than 40% have been mapped using
detailed study methods. Detailed study methods provide BFEs and more
5
accurate floodplain delineations than studies done by approximate methods. For
some Unnumbered A-Zones supporting technical backup data may be available
to explain and support how the floodplain boundaries were determined; that
information should be made available to the community. The remaining miles of
rivers and lakes have been mapped by approximate study methods that do not
result in the determination of the BFE. These rivers and lakes are mapped as
Unnumbered A-Zones.
Recent technical innovations, improved computer capability, and the availability
of USGS DOQ’s make it possible to enhance existing Unnumbered A-Zones and
create new and improved maps.
Nationwide improvement of existing
Unnumbered A-Zones is an objective of FEMA’s Map Modernization Plan
Unmapped Flood Hazard Areas
The Council recommended that flood-hazard areas that do not appear on any
FIRM be identified, prioritized in terms of the need, appropriately studied, and
properly mapped.
There are a large number of flood-hazard areas that have not been delineated,
yet which present a serious threat to people who may choose to buy or build
within them. The most pressing problems exist in or near communities that are
growing, but this is not the only place of concern. The lack of flood-hazard area
mapping has major consequences. Without maps that identify all flood-hazard
areas, communities cannot properly regulate new development. Continuing
unwise development in unmapped flood-hazard areas results in a growing
number of properties at risk, thereby escalating expenditures for disaster
assistance.
Without maps lenders are not obligated to require that properties be insured
against flood risk. Federal regulations require certain loans to be covered by
flood insurance, but if hazards are not identified then properties within high-risk
areas will likely not be insured. Uninsured property places lenders at risk.
Without maps, developers lack necessary guidance to avoid flood-prone areas,
increasing the number of buildings at risk, and increasing the demand for
disaster assistance. Likewise, the need for flood protection is unknown and
proper mitigation is not taken.
All flood-hazard areas need to be mapped in order for the NFIP to fulfill its
potential for reducing the rate of flood-related disaster costs.
6
Appendix B – Comprehensive List of Flood Map Modernization Activities
Activity
Management CTP
(Oversight)
(Projects)
Activity 1A – Scoping
X
X
Activity 1B – Outreach
X
X
Activity 1C – Field Surveys and
Reconnaissance
X
Activity 1D – Needs Assessment
X
X
Activity 2a – Topographic Data Inventory
X
X
Activity 2b–Topographic Data
Procurement
Activity 3 – Independent QA/QC of
Topographic Data
X
X
X
Activity 4 – Hydrologic Analyses
X
Activity 4A – Coastal Hazard Analysis
X
Activity 5 – Independent QA/QC of
Hydrologic Analyses
Activity 5A – Independent QA/QC of
Coastal Hazard Analysis
X
X
X
X
Activity 6 – Hydraulic Analyses
Activity 7 – Independent QA/QC of
Hydraulic Analyses
Activity 8 – Floodplain Mapping (Detailed
delineation and redelineation Using
Effective Profiles)
Activity 8a – Floodplain Mapping
(Approximate)
Activity 9– Independent QA/QC of
Floodplain Mapping
Activity 10 – Base Map Acquisition and
Preparation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Activity 10a – Digital Base Map Inventory
X
Activity 10b – Digital Base Map Sharing
X
Activity 11 – DFIRM Production (NonRevised Areas)
Activity 11A – Independent QA/QC of
DFIRM Production (Non-Revised Areas)
X
X
X
X
Activity
Activity 11b – DFIRM Maintenance
Activity 12 – Merging of Revised and NonRevised Information
Activity 12A – Application of DFIRM
Graphic Specifications
Activity 12B – Independent QA/QC of
DFIRM Graphics
Activity 13 – Preparation and Issuance of
Preliminary FIS and FIRM
Management CTP
(Oversight)
(Projects)
X
X
X
X
Activity 16 – Contract
Negotiation/Management
Activity 17 – Establishment of minimum
standards
Activity 18 – Technical Standards
Agreement
Activity 19 – Due Process Activities –
Conduct Time & Cost Meeting and Final
Meeting, process appeals
Activity 20 – LOMCs
Activity 21 – Information Technology
Systems
Activity 22 – Reengineer Business
Processes
Activity 23 – Report to Oversight
Authorities
Activity 24 - Archival of superceded
FIRMs, FIS, background data, etc.
X
X
Activity 14 – Post-Preliminary Processing
Activity 15 – Project Selection
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
APPENDIX C - FY 2003 BUDGET DECISIONS OVERVIEW, MAY 2003
Background
Fiscal year 2003 was a major transition year for the NFIP Flood Hazard Mapping
Program. The FY 2003 funding level for program was 250% of the previous year
and 400% of the level of the recent past. Although planning for Map
Modernization had been ongoing for some time, the considerable uncertainty
about what the funding level would be for 2003 substantially limited FEMA’s
ability to finalize FY2003 plans. Congress did not pass the FY2003 budget until
mid-February, nearly five months into the fiscal year. Once the budget is passed
and signed, there are additional steps that must be taken for OMB to release the
funds to the Departments and Agencies and for the Departments to develop a
spending plan. Until the budget was finalized, the flood mapping program
continued to be funded at the substantially lower FY2002 level which was only
sufficient to keep essential services operating. Indeed, at times the expectation
was that this could be the funding level for FY2003 and some difficult choices
would be required to fulfill all of the obligations of the mapping program.
Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was not officially formed
until March 1st, 2003, when the FY 2003 budget was passed the transition office
for DHS was already in place. For the first time ever, FEMA had an additional
level of budget oversight. Further, because this was the first year of full funding
for Map Modernization, the methodology for distributing funds was updated to
align with the consensus reached with stakeholders and to maximize
performance for the program. These factors resulted in delays in distributing
funds for FY2003 Map Modernization projects.
In early February, the Flood Mapping program held a meeting in Atlanta with
program stakeholders to prepare for the decisions that would need to be made
regarding the FY2003 budget once it was enacted. Participants included
representatives from state, regional and local government, the Association of
State Floodplain Managers, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies, and FEMA headquarters and regional staff. This
meeting developed a consensus that if Map Modernization was funded in
FY2003, the program would need to focus initially on the highest risk areas in
order to demonstrate the importance of the program. The participants agreed on
a set of criteria to use to guide the budget decision-making process. These
criteria formed the basis of the Flood Mapping Program’s FY2003 budget
decisions. This overview describes the process and the methodology used to
make the budget decisions.
Data Compilation
To prepare for making decisions regarding the distribution of funding under Map
Modernization in FY 2003, the Hazard Mapping Division in the Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) collected and compiled a significant amount
of data from various sources into one comprehensive database. Sources of data
included:






Status of studies and mapping projects currently in progress. These data
were provided by the Mapping Coordination Contractors (MCCs), and
included proposed delivery dates, study format, communities involved,
and more.
Data collected by the Census for every county in the United States
including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
(total of 3,146 counties in 53 “states”). Data included 2000 population,
number of housing units, non-negative population growth, land area and
more.
Insurance data at the county level was also compiled from various sources
within FIMA. Data included number of flood policies, number of claims,
number of repetitive flood loss properties and claims, number of flood
disaster declarations, number of mapped flood panels, and more.
Flood map plans developed by FEMA’s Regional offices in coordination
with the states (the “State Plans”). These state plans were developed in
September 2002 to meet specific objectives at the time they were
developed. The data included recommendations for funding specific
studies at the county level, the potential cost of such studies, and the
proposed delivery date of final map products.
Information on Early Implementation projects. This information was
developed by FEMA’s Regional offices and highlighted projects that could
be delivered in a short timeframe. This information was compiled in March
2003.
Information collected during a meeting in Atlanta in February 2003 that
outlined what factors FEMA should consider when targeting areas for
updated flood maps. These criteria included:
 High population density
 High growth areas
 High risk areas: history of repetitive loss/claims/disasters
 NFIP policy base
 Leverage existing data
 Accuracy and adequacy of products
 Comprehensive watershed approach
Ranking
Using the database developed, the Hazard Mapping Division ranked each county
in the nation from 1-3,146. The ranking was accomplished by focusing on
quantifiable numbers that reflected the criteria developed in Atlanta. Primarily,
the data used came from Census, the flood insurance program, and disaster
response data (specific data elements were: population, growth, housing units,
policies, claims, repetitive loss properties and claims, and flood disasters). The
percentage each county contributes to the national total was calculated for each
data element and added across the elements. Those values where then totaled
for the nation and ranked from highest to lowest.
For example: Miami-Dade County, FL makes up 0.79% of the nation’s
population, 1.05% of the population moving into areas chose to move there, they
make up 0.73% of all housing units nationwide. Miami-Dade County makes up
7.86% of the flood policy base, is responsible for 3.51% of the claims filed, has
2.53% of the repetitive loss properties and 1.94% of the repetitive loss claims.
They also make up roughly 0.08% of the declared flood disasters nationwide.
Adding these percentages totals 18.49%. Those same computations were done
for all 3,146 counties nationwide. They were then sorted from highest to lowest
and assigned ranks from 1 to 3,146.
The county rankings were then aggregated into “deciles.” Each county was
assigned a number from 1 to 10 (314 counties per decile). For purposes of FY
2003 funding, specific emphasis was placed on counties in the top decile.
Study Categories
Several study categories were identified. “DFIRM Upgrades” is a category of
studies recently or soon to be completed that can be delivered in the new DFIRM
specification with a view tool for use at the community level. FEMA has
developed this product as the foundation for the future of flood hazard
identification. “Pipeline Studies” are in-house studies actively being worked on.
Many are fully funded, however, many are in need of additional resources to
bring them to completion. It was determined that these studies should continue if
they were in top decile counties because they already have had a significant
amount of FEMA resources dedicated to them. Further, many of them can be
delivered much more quickly than newly initiated studies. “Other Federal
Agency” work was determined to also be an area of focus. As a result several
ongoing studies involving other federal agencies were funded.
“Other
Compelling” projects was a category created to capture earmarks and other high
profile projects. “Early Implementation” projects are proposed new study starts
that were determined to have fairly quick turn around.
In general, the early implementation and other compelling work can be thought of
as “new” work; whereas the other federal agency work, pipeline studies, and
DFIRM upgrades can generally be viewed as ongoing work that is nearing
completion.
DFIRM Upgrades
A number of recently- or nearly-completed studies were found to be in a format
readily convertible to the February 2002 DFIRM specification such that they
could be delivered to local governments using a recently developed “beta”
version of a flood map view tool. A field of 385 potential counties where DFIRM
2002 products could be delivered was identified. The criteria used to narrow the
field included: must be a county within the top 5 deciles (ranked within the top
50% of all counties nationwide), must be a “full” community product, and the
product must be deliverable in preliminary or effective format by the end of FY
2003. This narrowed the field from 385 candidates to 132. The total estimated
cost to complete the work is approximately $6 million.
Pipeline Studies
In-house work or “pipeline studies” were defined as those where the MCC had
either been funded to initiate processing, or had already received a completed
study contractor or CTP mapping package. A significant amount of work was
determined to fall within this category (398 counties). Over half of this work (277
counties) was insufficiently funded and could not be completed without additional
resources. The top decile was consequently fully funded (71 counties). The total
estimated cost to deliver this work is approximately $10 million.
Other Federal Agency Work
Recognizing the importance of work being performed by Other Federal Agencies,
it was decided to continue several projects with the Army Corps of Engineers and
the U.S. Geological Survey that had been initiated in FY 2002. Five studies in
the top decile counties were funded at a total estimated cost of $425k.
Other Compelling Reasons
Earmarks and high profile studies that had compelling reasons to fund were
given consideration under this category. Studies needing funding in this category
include New York State (earmark), North Carolina (strong CTP), West Virginia
(earmark), Wisconsin (CTP), Louisiana (earmark), and Colorado (CTP). The
total cost for these efforts is estimated at approximately $15 million.
Early Implementation Projects
After funding had been allocated for the above categories, there was
approximately $45 million remaining. Of that total, $15 million was designated for
the Early Implementation Projects with the most potential for providing quick
benefits. The remaining $30 million was distributed to the Regions using the
“Atlanta” factors noted above to determine the percentage to each Region.
Guidance for selecting projects was provided to the Regions in a memo from
Anthony Lowe dated May 14, 2003.
Conclusion
Studies specifically selected to receive funding in 2003 are generally highly
ranked with regard to the Atlanta factors, can be quickly turned around and
delivered to state and local governments, and/or have other fairly compelling
reasons to move forward. The total value of projects specifically identified is
approximately $46 million. This funding will result in mapping products being
delivered to roughly half the nation’s population and roughly half the flood
policies in force. The Regional offices have been asked to verify that the projects
specifically identified are still valid. An additional $30 million is being distributed
to the Regional offices and will be targeted at the nation’s highest ranking
counties (top 20%) based on the criteria developed in Atlanta.
ASSOCIATION OF STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGERS, INC.
2809 Fish Hatchery Road
Fax 608-274-0696
:
Chair
George Riedel, CFM
Missouri Emergency
Management Agency
P.O. Box 116
Jefferson City, MO 65102
573-526-9141
Fax 573-526-9198
griedel@sema.state.mo.us
Vice Chair
Chad Berginnis, CFM
Ohio DNR - Division Of Water
1939 Fountain Square, Bldg. E-3
Columbus OH 43224
614-265-6715
Fax 614-447-9503
chad.berginnis@dnr.state.oh.us
Secretary
Pam Pogue
Hazards Program Mgr.
Rhode Isl. Emerg. Mgmt Agency
645 New London Ave.
Cranston, RI 02920
401-462-7114
Fax 401-944-1891
pam.pogue@ri.ngb.army.mil
Treasurer
Nicholas Winter
Metro. District Commission
Charles River Dam
250 Warren Avenue
Charlestown, MA 02129
617-727-0488
Fax 617-523-1793
nick.winter@state.ma.us
Executive Director
Larry A. Larson, P.E., CFM
Executive Director
2809 Fish Hatchery Rd
Madison, WI 53713
608-274-0123
Fax 608-274-0696
larry@floods.org
Madison, Wisconsin 53713
Website: www.floods.org
Email
:
608-274-0123
asfpm@floods.org
Association of State Floodplain Managers
Resolution
On Map Modernization
May 12, 2003
WHEREAS, the Congress, in passing the National Flood Insurance Program
in 1968, recognized the importance and significance of flood hazard maps;
and
WHEREAS, in 1994, as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act,
Congress directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
establish the Technical Mapping Advisory Council to provide
recommendations on ways to improve flood hazard maps and the mapping
processes; and
WHEREAS, in November 1997, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, based on recommendations of the Technical Mapping Advisory
Council, completed a report entitled “Modernizing FEMA’s Flood Hazard
Mapping Program, A Progress Report” identifying actions to improve the
agency’s flood hazard mapping program “to better serve the citizens of the
United States”; and
WHEREAS, the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) and the
Flood Map Coalition urged Congress to fund the program to modernize
floodplain maps in order to realize “the desired benefits of saving lives and
property”; and
WHEREAS, Congress approved $150 million in additional funding for Map
Modernization activities for FY 2003; and
WHEREAS, floodplain management officials of states, regional agencies,
local governments and other floodplain management professionals that are
represented in ASFPM are prepared to participate in Map Modernization
activities;
THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Association of State Floodplain
Managers does hereby resolve to urge the Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, to take the following
actions in support of modernizing the nation’s flood hazard maps:
“Dedicated to reducing flood losses in the nation.”
1. Work with States to update, certify and approve each of the state Map
Modernization Implementation Plans and formally consolidate all of those plans
into a preliminary nationwide Map Modernization Implementation Plan.
2. Adopt and enforce the following technical quality assurance standards to ensure
minimum level of quality and accuracy in all future Flood Hazard Maps and/or
data published by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, regardless of time constraints:
 The flood elevations and the floodplain delineations on the maps must
correlate reasonably to the best available topographic information for the
stream and adjacent corridor.
 The planimetric features on the floodplain maps (streets and highways,
stream centerlines, bridges and other critical hydraulic features, corporate
limits, section lines and corners, survey benchmarks, etc.) must correlate
reasonably to the best available aerial photos or other suitable imagery for
the stream and the adjacent corridor.
 The flood hydrology used to develop the floodplain map must still reasonably
reflect the flood hazard and meet pertinent local, regional, state and federal
technical standards.
3. Provide an annual base level of funding of $100,000 per state to support the
function of Map Coordinator for each of the 50 states and thereby ensure a
minimum level of technical and administrative guidance for flood hazard mapping
activities in each state.
4. Provide those states, regional agencies, and local governments that are both
qualified and interested with the opportunity to manage as many Map
Modernization activities as they are capable of managing within their respective
jurisdictions and that they be provided the maximum flexibility in the selection of
mapping priorities.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of
the Association of State Floodplain Managers that we urge the President and the
Congress of the United States to take the following actions in support of
modernizing the nation’s flood hazard maps;
1. Provide long-term funding, sufficient both in terms of annual funding levels and in
terms of the minimum number of years of funding, to ensure the completion of the
Map Modernization Plan for the entire country; and
2. If necessary, authorize the creation of and provide ongoing financial support for a
technical resource and advisory group similar to the Technical Mapping Advisory
Council, whose function would be to provide long-term monitoring of and technical
recommendations for the implementation of the Map Modernization Plan, to ensure
the highest possible performance standards for the program.
Approved by the Board of Directors May 12, 2003
Attested _________________________, Secretary
APPENDIX E - STREAM MILES (BY STATE)
State
Total Miles
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Lousiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
78,131
411,090
140,815
80,229
181,818
96,441
6,466
2,742
31,548
71,436
7,045
98,677
70,791
26,171
70,957
122,170
48,980
52,388
32,697
12,965
9,781
54,182
69,243
81,441
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hamshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennesse
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
100,283
173,875
76,398
145,895
11,035
8,868
110,716
55,758
63,288
57,012
81,663
107,039
55,304
1,482
34,240
101,644
63,619
188,533
86,120
7,919
54,308
75,030
32,595
59,642
110,069
3,720,539
APPENDIX F - FEMA’S STATE BUSINESS PLAN
FEMA Headquarters and Regional personnel have prepared a business plan
template to provide further guidance to the States in development of a MultiHazard Flood Map Modernization State Business Plan. (FEMA envisions using
this same format in the future for funded CTPs.) The business plan will outline:
(a) how future funding will be used to develop and maintain the capability and
capacity for managing the modernization effort in their State/locality, as well as
describe the program administration and management activities the state/locality
will undertake; and (b) the mapping projects to be completed over a 5-year
period.
We recognize that the program planning, administration, and management costs
for Map Modernization are significant but necessary to achieve effective program
management. For this reason, the State Business Plan approach has been
adopted to document the efforts that Map Modernization partners will undertake,
as well as to justify funding for these program planning, administration and
management efforts. These business plans will be updated on an annual basis
as Map Modernization progresses.
FEMA’s Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization effort includes an integrated
partnership composed of multiple States, regional, local, and/or tribal
agencies/organizations that contribute to or guide the development of projects.
The ultimate goal is devolving floodplain mapping to State/local entities with
interest and capability. All endeavors connected with FEMA’s Multi-Hazard
Flood Map Modernization, including the efforts of states and localities, must
contribute to achieving the following objectives:
1. Establish and maintain a premier data collection and delivery system:
Create a premier, geo-spatial system that provides easy access to reliable
flood hazard data and other information and hazard data to support risk
management applications and operations.
2. Achieve effective program management: Develop and provide a
continually improving program management structure that motivates
partners to share responsibilities and aligns partner missions to reduce the
nation’s vulnerability to flood and other hazards.
3. Build and maintain mutually beneficial partnerships: Foster mutually
beneficial partnerships that achieve shared outcomes through the
communication of flood risk and other hazard information and improve the
systems that support them. Partnerships will result in enhanced delivery of
risk management applications and operations.
4. Expand and better inform the user community: Foster public and
stakeholder understanding of where to obtain flood and other hazard data
and how to use and analyze it in order to make sound decisions to reduce
their vulnerability to natural, and man made hazards.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION: STATE BUSINESS PLAN TEMPLATE
I) Your vision for supporting Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization (Map Mod)

Describe your current efforts
 Flood hazard data
 Flood hazard mapping
 NFIP activities that meet or exceed minimum NFIP criteria (including
plans and legislation that support Map Mod activities)

Describe what you want to achieve

Include references to State Plans prepared in 2002 and any updates
II) Needs and Plan/Strategy (for a 5-Year period)

Project Description
 Outline how the State/locality will develop and maintain the capability
and capacity for managing the Flood Map Modernization efforts.
 Identify the program administration and management activities to be
undertaken.

Justification
 Describe how the program administration and management activities,
and proposed mapping projects will help achieve the goals listed in the
Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Objectives (see Background
and Attachment X)
 For each program administration and management activity identified,
describe your staff capabilities, existing resources, and training needs
 Describe or define existing shortfalls (staffing or other resources)
 Relate your proposed activities to your Governor’s or Department’s
existing strategic plan(s), as available (or other documented support of
the chief executive officer or board of directors)
 Identify mapping projects to be initiated each year.

Project Plan
 Describe your project management plan (including cost and schedule
information) that will ensure that goals and activities you propose will
successfully be accomplished, including:
 Project timeline (for both program administration and management as
well as for mapping projects)
 Resources/Staffing (state, local, federal, contractor)
 Deliverable(s)
 Reporting
 Quality assurance
III) Performance Goals/Cost and Schedule Measures (tracking)

For each program administration and management activity as well as
mapping projects you proposed in Section II, identify the performance
measures.



FEMA will provide a web-based system for tracking and reporting cost,
schedule, and performance. Describe how you will ensure that this
system is supplied with required information.
 Alternatives/Varying Funding Levels
Given the following alternative funding levels, describe federal funding,
state/locality/partner funding, and performance over a 5-year period:
 FULL (funding and performance levels are described in Sections II and
III)
 MEDIUM – Approximately 2/3 of full funding to accomplish the
prioritized activities that meet Map Mod objectives. Show funding and
prioritization of activities per year for a 5-year period.
 LOW – Approximately 1/3 of full funding to accomplish only the top
prioritized activities that meet Map Mod objectives. Show funding and
prioritization of activities per year for a 5-year period.
STATE OR LOCALLY FUNDED – activities that do not require Federal
funds.

Explain how FEMA funding will fill the shortfalls identified in Section II.

Explain how the State/local match, where applicable, will be provided.
APPENDIX G - SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BUSINESS PLAN OUTLINE
1. Our vision for supporting Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization (Map Mod)
 Describe your current efforts
 Flood hazard data
 Flood hazard mapping
 NFIP activities that meet or exceed minimum NFIP criteria (including
plans and legislation that support Map Mod activities)
 Describe what you want to achieve
 Include references to State Plans prepared in 2002 and any updates
 Include matrix organizational structure
 Process flow diagram
2.. Needs and Plan/Strategy (for a 5-Year period)
 Project Description
 Outline how the State/locality will develop and maintain the capability
and capacity for managing the Flood Map Modernization efforts.
 Identify the program administration and management activities to be
undertaken to include project team roles and job descriptions.
 Justification
 Describe how the program administration and management activities,
and proposed mapping projects will help achieve the goals listed in the
Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Objectives (see Background
and Attachment X)
 For each program administration and management activity identified,
describe your staff capabilities, existing resources, and training needs
 Develop procurement plan for IT.
 Identify training needs for end user and future sustainability of program
to include local level training needs.
 Describe or define existing shortfalls (staffing or other resources)
 Relate your proposed activities to your Governor’s or Department’s
existing strategic plan(s), as available (or other documented support of
the chief executive officer or board of directors)
 Identify mapping projects to be initiated each year.
 Project Plan
Describe your project management plan (including cost and schedule
information) that will ensure that goals and activities you propose will
successfully be accomplished, including:
 Project timeline (for both program administration and management as
well as for mapping projects)
 Resources/Staffing (state, local, federal, contractor)
 Deliverable(s)
 Reporting
 Quality assurance
3. Performance Goals/Cost and Schedule Measures (tracking)











For each program administration and management activity as well as
mapping projects you proposed in Section II, identify the performance
measures.
FEMA will provide a web-based system for tracking and reporting cost,
schedule, and performance. Describe how you will ensure that this
system is supplied with required information.
Include work breakdown structure.
Alternatives/Varying Funding Level
Given the following alternative funding levels, describe federal funding,
state/locality/partner funding, and performance over a 5-year period:
Full (funding and performance levels are described in Sections II and
III)
Medium – Approximately 2/3 of full funding to accomplish the
prioritized activities that meet Map Mod objectives. Show funding and
prioritization of activities per year for a 5-year period.
Low – Approximately 1/3 of full funding to accomplish only the top
prioritized activities that meet Map Mod objectives. Show funding and
prioritization of activities per year for a 5-year period.
State or Locally Funded – activities that do not require Federal funds.
Explain how FEMA funding will fill the shortfalls identified in Section II.
Explain how the State/local match, where applicable, will be provided.
APPENDIX H - CALIFORNIA STATE BUSINESS PLAN OUTLINE
I. Executive Summary
A. President’s Management Agenda/FEMA
1. Economic Integrity
2. Public Safety
B. Floodplain Planning Needs
C. State Business Plan Overview
D. Recommendations
II. Introduction (General Information)
A. Background (1-2 Paragraphs)
1. National Flood Related Losses
a) Property Losses
b) Loss of Life
c) Emergency Services
d) Community Disruption
e) Critical Facilities
f) Repetitive Losses
2. Management/Client
a) Federal
b) State
c) County and City
d) Citizens
3. Floodplain Mapping Support
a) FEMA – NFIP
b) Other Federal Agencies
c) State Programs
d) Local Programs
B. National Flood Insurance Program
1. Purpose of this Program
a) Provide Insurance
b) Reduce Losses to Future Development
2. Flood Insurance Study Products (Resources)
3. Issues
C. NFIP Map Modernization
1. Program Background and Objectives
2. Basic Process
3. State Business Plan
a) Planning Phase I – 6 Months
b) Implementation Phase II
(1) Support Activities (CAP MAP)
(2) Project Activities (CTP/MAS)
D. State Organization
1. Agencies
2. DWR Floodplain Management Program Support
a) Base CTP Agreement
b) Standards
c) Staff
d) Skill
e) QA/AC
f) Other Resources
3. Current Funding Programs
a) State
b) FEMA
c) Other Federal Agencies
E. DWR Mapping Programs (Impact on NFIP)
1. Awareness Floodplain Mapping
a) Description
(1) 25-Year Development Plan
(2) Statewide GIS Database
(3) 15,000 miles Completed, 20,000 miles Remaining
b) Application
2. Detailed Studies
a) Purpose
b) FEMA Compatible
c) Studies Completed or Underway
3. Reclamation Board
4. Community Study Support (Coordination with other Agencies)
a) Direct Use of Other Federal Agencies (DWR Study
Support)
b) Indirect Use of Other Federal Agencies (FPMS, etc)
F. Risk Communication
1. Needs
2. Processes
a) Marketing – Encourage Involvement
b) Outreach – Raise Awareness
c) Facilitation – Build Consensus
d) Education – Teach Concepts
e) Training – Apply Concepts
f) Learning – Inspire Workforce and Partners
III. Floodplain Management and Map Modernization Programs
A. NFIP Floodplain Management History
B. Existing State Map Modernization Plan
1. History
2. Reference Copy in Appendix
C. Hazard Mitigation Planning
1. State Support Structure
2. Components
3. Interrelated and Impacted Programs
D. Flood Warning Systems and Emergency Support Programs
1. Programs
2. Increasing Program and Support Costs
3. Need for MBP Products
E. California Legacy Project
F. The State of California’s Vision for Future Floodplain Mapping
1. FEMA’s Role
2. State’s Role
IV. Statutory Management (Identify Basic Impact)
A. Federal Legislation and Guidance
1. Federal Insurance Act of 1956
2. National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
3. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
4. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management for Federal
Agencies
5. Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982
6. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Disaster Relief Act of
1988
7. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990
8. Executive Order 12770, Mapping Changes
9. National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994
10. Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
B. State Enabling Legislation and Guidance
1. Water Codes – Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act
2. Government Codes – Planning and Land Use, Local Agencies,
Etc.
3. Executive Orders – 1977 and Proposed
4. General Plan Guidelines – 1990
5. Funding Authorities – Senate Bill 4, Proposition 13, Etc.
6. FPM Task Force Reports – FEAT 1997, FMTFR 2002
7. DWR – Floodplain Management Mission
V. Floodplain Mapping Goals
A. FEMA Basic Goals
1. Reduce the Average Age of Maps to 6 Years
2. Produce Digital Mapping Products with Up-to-date Flood Hazard
Data for the 15% Highest Priority Areas
3. Develop Flood Maps for 50% of the Unmapped, Flood prone
Communities
4. Encourage State/Local Cost Sharing for Flood Mapping Projects
B. National Five-year Plan
C. Consensus FY03 Factors
1. High Population Density
2. High Growth Areas
3. High Risk Areas: History of Repetitive Loss/Claims/Disaster
4. NFIP Policy Base: Local Commitment to Floodplain
Management
5. Ability to Leverage/Cost Share with State, Local, and Regional
Entities
6. Ability to Efficiently Leverage Other FEMA & Federal Agency
Work
7. Accuracy and Adequacy of Products > Quality
8. Early Implementations
9. Comprehensive Watershed Approach
10. Contingencies/Disasters/Emergencies
D. State Identified Mapping Needs
1. Current Flood Hazard Mapping Programs
a) Detailed Studies
b) Approximate Studies
c) Supports both Floodplain Mapping and Multi-Hazard
Mapping
2. Floodplain Management Task Force
a) Major Recommendations
(1) Awareness Floodplain Mapping
(2) Future Build-out Mapping
(3) Watershed-Based Mapping
(4) GIS Flood Maps
(5) Alluvial Fan Floodplains
(6) Stream Gaging and Monitoring
(7) Repetitive Losses
(8) Flood Warning and Local Response Programs
(9) Support and Use of FIRM’s
(10) Exceeding NFIP Minimum Requirements
(11) Executive Order – Provide Status
(12) State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
(13) Multi-Hazard Mapping
(14) Additional 25 Objectives
b) Task Force Agency Membership
E. Local Community Requirements
VI. State Staffing and Contracting Support
A.
B.
C.
D.
Organization and Management
Contracting Resources
Specific CAP MAP Support
Specific CTP/MAS Support
VII.
Project Management Plans
A. Introduction to Tools Available
B. FEMA’s Requirements for Mapping Projects
C. State Management Hierarchy
1. Management Function
a) Community Centered
b) Product Oriented
c) Necessity of Partnering
d) Community Assistance
e) Outreach Strategy
2. Mapping Management Activities (CAP MAP Processes)
a) Introduction
b) Program Support
c) Cost Sharing
3. Scoping and Mapping Activities Statements (CTP Processes)
a) Introduction
b) Program Support
c) Cost Sharing
D. Mapping Metrics
1. FEMA
2. State of California
VIII.
State Business Plan Template
A. FEMA Objectives
1. Establish and Maintain a Premier Data Collection and Deliver
System
2. Achieve Effective Program Management
3. Build and Maintain Mutually Beneficial Partnerships
4. Expand and Better Inform the User Community
B. ASFPM Recommendations
1. Needed Changes to Mapping Priority Process
2. Mapping Areas Not Mapped But Expected to Develop
3. Assessment of Risk for Areas Behind Levees
4. Necessity of Quality Data for Mapping Program
5. True Cost Assessments
6. Etc.
C. State Activities (Table Format – Activity and Three-Stage Description)
1. Use and Purpose for this Table
2. CAP MAP
a) Activity 1
b) Activity 2
c) Activity 3
d) Etc.
3. CTP/MAS
a) Activity 1
b) Activity 2
c) Activity 3
d) Etc.
IX. Cost Indices
A. Cost Sharing Requirements
1. CAP MAP (75/25)
2. CTP/MAS (100/0)
B. Leveraging
1. Current and Potential State Funding
2. Completed Mapping Efforts
3. Future Mapping Support
4. Community Support
C. FEMA’s Blue Book
D. Estimation of Costs
E. Tiered Activities (Table Format – Activity and 3 Funding Levels)
1. Use and Purpose for this Table
2. CAP MAP
a) Activity 1
b) Activity 2
c) Activity 3
d) Etc.
3. CTP/MAS
a) Activity 1
b) Activity 2
c) Activity 3
d) Etc.
X. Summarize State’s Future with and without MBP
A.
B.
C.
D.
Community Flood Losses (Life and Property)
Future Development Structures and Policy
Flood Emergency Services (Disruption and Costs)
Other Factors (Systematic Approach for all Hazards)
XI. Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Documents (Existing Programs, Awareness Mapping, etc.)
Reports (Map Modernization Plan, Blue Book, Task Forces, etc.)
Legislation (Existing Requirements, Authorizations, etc.)
Pertinent Info for MBP (CAP MAP Authority, Base Requirements, etc.)
Other Supporting Documentation (CTP Agreement, etc.