The New FIS Report:
What Has Changed and What Does the Future Hold?
May 17, 2011
Andy Bonner, PE, CFM – BakerAECOM
Scott McAfee, CFM, GISP – FEMA
Turgay Dabak, PhD, PE – BakerAECOM
Agenda
 FEMA’s Long-Term Vision
 FIRM & FIRM Database Updates
• Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
• FIRM Database
• Guidance Updates
 Changes to the FIS Report
• Format & Organization
• Inclusion of Information Previously Found on the FIRMs
• Relation to FIRM Database Tables
• Usability Improvements
• Guidance Updates
 Non-Countywide Regulatory Product Update Scenarios
2
Long-Term Vision
 Goals of enhancing Regulatory Products
• More user friendly maps
• Geospatially aware datasets
• Easier to update the products and deliver them via the internet
 Steps to achieving vision
• Map Modernization
• Risk MAP
• Future tool development
3
FIRM & FIRM Database Updates
4
Changes to FIRM - Overview
 Improve ease of use of FIRM maps
 Communicating Flood Insurance Zones more clearly
 Update graphic specifications
 Simplify map production
5
Changes to FIRM – Map Collar
 Simplified Legend: focus on Flood Hazard Information
 Condensed Notes to Users: most important notes remains on all maps
 New Panel Locator: added for easier navigation and orientation
6
Changes to FIRM – Symbology
 Focus on Flood Hazard Information
• Simplified symbology for water features, transportation, political boundaries and flood
hazard boundary lines
• Relaxed labeling guidelines for base map features
• Removed benchmarks
 New Flood Hazard Symbology
ZONES A, AE, AH, AO,
AR, A99, V, VE
FLOODWAY
“Shaded X”
PROTECTED BY
ACCR. LEVEE
ZONE D
ZONE X
(NO SCREEN)
SPECIAL
FLOODWAY
FUTURE
CONDITIONS
 Special Flood
Hazard Areas
(SFHA)
 “Shaded Zone
X”
 Other Areas
7
Changes to FIRM – Symbology
 Detailed Study, Levee and Area
Protected by Accredited Levee
 Floodway with Fringe and
labeled Cross Sections
 Zone X and Zone D with Political
Boundary
8
Changes to FIRM – Display of BFEs
 Current FIRM
• Displayed as wavy lines drawn perpendicular to the stream
• Labeled with a flood elevation rounded to the nearest foot
• Accuracy impacted by rounding, interpolation and cartographic restrictions
 New FIRM – Riverine channels
• Primary representation of BFEs are lettered and unlettered Cross Sections from the
hydraulic model
• Labeled with a flood elevation rounded to the nearest 1/10th of a foot
• Where the difference between Cross Sections is greater than one foot vertical rise,
traditional wavy BFE lines with labels rounded to the nearest foot are added
 New FIRM – Two-dimensional models and backwater areas
• No cross sections exist for these areas
• BFEs are displayed as traditional wavy BFE lines
• Labeled with a flood elevation rounded to the nearest foot
9
Changes to FIRM Database Overview
 Store all data needed to create Regulatory Products in FIRM Database
• Include all elements needed to automate FIRM creation
• Add tables/fields to store FIS Report elements
 Remove elements no longer needed due to FIRM simplification
10
Changes to FIRM Database –
Supports FIS report creation
 Derivation of Data from Appendix L
• Most of the data shown in tables in the FIS Report can be derived from tables of the
FIRM database as specified in Appendix L.
• Even complex tables can be created using spatial overlays
 Examples of tables created from spatial overlays
• Flood Zone Designations by Community: spatial
overlay of S_Pol_Ar and S_Fld_Haz_Ar
• Listing of NFIP Jurisdictions: spatial overlay of
S_Pol_Ar joined to L_Comm_Info, S_FIRM_Pan, and
S_Subbasins
• Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report: spatial
overlay of S_Pol_Ar, S_Profil_Basln and/or
S_Tsct_Basln, S_Fld_Haz_Ar, and S_Submittal_Info
11
FIRM & FIRM Database Guidance
Updates
 Updates of Appendices (K/L)
• Clarify/Improve User Guidance
 Incorporate Procedural Memorandums
 Streamlining text
• Identify Interdependencies of Appendices
 Appendix M (Engineering): stores "raw" mapping
data
 Appendix L (FIRM DB): stores basemap data,
"smoothed" floodplain boundaries and tables
needed to create the FIS report
 Appendix K: stores map making guidelines
• Clarify/outline deliverable formats
 Personal Geodatabase and SHP will be submitted to
MSC
 MSC deliverable guidance document
 Implementation of changes planned for FY11
funded studies
12
FIRM Database Build-Up
Mapping Information Platform Tasks
Discovery
Acquire
Base Map
Develop
Topographic
Data
Data Capture
for
Discovery
Perform
Field
Survey
Data Capture
for Terrain
Data Capture
for Base Map
Develop
Hydrologic
Data
Develop
Hydraulic
Data
Data Capture for
Hydrologic Data
Data Capture
for Survey
Perform
Coastal
Analysis
Perform
Alluvial Fan Redelineation
Analysis
Data Capture
for Coastal
Data Capture for
Hydraulic Data
Data Capture for
Alluvial Fans
Perform
Floodplain
Mapping
Develop
FIRM
Database
Produce
Preliminary
Map Products
Effective Date
Post Preliminary Processing
Data Capture for Redelineation
& Digital Conversion
Data Capture for PostPreliminary Process
Correspondence, Project Documentation, FIS Text, Narratives, and Other Supplemental Info
13
Changes to FIS Report - Overview
 Reformat FIS Report document
 Reorganize/add new sections to FIS
Report
 Incorporate full FIRM Legend & Notes to
Users
 Derive FIS Report tables directly from
FIRM Database
 Improve Usability
14
Changes to FIS Report
 Reformat FIS Report Document
• Refresh Branding: Update FIS Report cover
15
Changes to FIS Report
 No more family on the cover anymore
16
Changes to FIS Report
 Reformat FIS Report Document
• Sections Added/Reorganized
• New Sections for:
• Coastal Analyses
• Alluvial Fan Analyses
• Levees
• Community Meetings
• Etc.
• Study-specific information
presented in tabular format as
much as possible
17
Changes to FIS Report
 Inclusion of FIRM-related Information
• Integrate FIRM Index into FIS Report
 Simplified significantly
 FIRM Panel Index, Political Areas, &
Watershed Boundaries
 Panel dates/Panel-Not-Printed notes kept on
Index
 11x17 fold-out
 Map repositories and community dates are
moved into FIS Report tables
18
Changes to FIS Report
 Inclusion of FIRM-related Information
• Notes to Users & Full FIRM Legend moved to FIS Report
19
Changes to FIS Report
 FIS Report Tables Derived from FIRM Database
• Sets the stage for future automation and production efficiencies
FIS Report
Table
FIRM Database – FIS Report Derivation
Table in Procedure Memo Guidance
20
Changes to FIS Report
 Usability Improvements
• Interactive Table of Contents
 Bookmarks link to section headings,
tables, and figures
• Searchable text PDF – not a scan
• Tabular format
 Less narrative and prose
 Easier to search for study-specific
information
• Editable (Microsoft Word) format
template will be provided to
Mapping Partners
21
FIS Report Guidance Updates
 FIS Report Procedure Memorandum
• FIS Report Template in Word Doc format
 Editable
 Boilerplate vs. Study-specific text highlighted
in different colors for quick and easy
replacing
• FIS Report Template in PDF format
 Includes Flood Profile examples
 Highlights PDF bookmarking guidance
• FIS Report Guidance document
 Specific instructions regarding certain tables
and figures
 Table outlining derivation of FIS Report tables
from Appendix L tables
 Identification of sections of Appendix J that
are superseded by the new PM
 Watershed project considerations
22
Regulatory Products Summary
 Simplify map production
• Alignment with FIRM DB & Set framework for on-demand mapping
• Clarity, Conciseness, Usability
 Empowering tools through the data
• Move more toward digital products to drive digital consumption
 Alignment toward Risk MAP goals
• Efficiencies through digital production
• Better risk communication
23
Regulatory Product Considerations:
Non-Countywide Update Scenarios
 Potential Project Scales for New Studies
• Watershed
• Coastal
• Other PMR
 Effective Study Scenarios
• Countywide
• Partial Countywide
• Community-Based (Single Jurisdictions)
• Not previously mapped
 Example: Watershed Study (same rules can be applied for other project scales)
24
Potential Scenarios
 One Watershed Study – 5 Counties Affected
County 2
County 1
New/Updated
Studies
County 5
County 3
County 4
25
Potential Scenarios
 Effective Studies – FIRM layouts
County 2
Partial CW
County 1
Non-Modernized
County 5
CW
County 3
CW
County 4
Non-Modernized
26
County 1: Update Options
 FIRM Panels
County 1 Effective FIRM Panel Scheme
Non-Modernized
27
OPTION A
• Update only the panels
affected by the new
studies (following quadbased paneling scheme)
and follow guidelines
from PM 46 (Partial
Countywide Mapping
Evaluation) for
remaining panels
OPTION B
• Update all the panels in
the county to countywide
format
County 1: Update Options
 FIRM Panels
• Updated FIRM Panels
follow countywide format
and the new Appendix K
County 1 New FIRM Panel Scheme
Non-Modernized
Updated FIRM Panels
*
28
County 1: Update Options
 FIRM Panels
• Entire panel is updated
based on new Appendix K
standards
• Effective flooding from
outside the watershed
must be incorporated onto
the panel
• Mappable LOMCs
affecting an updated
panel should be
incorporated onto the
FIRM as well
*
29
County 1: Update Options
 FIS Report
OPTION A
• Follow guidelines of PM
46 (Partial Countywide)
OPTION B
• Consolidate all effective
community-based FIS
Reports into countywide
format and update
according to FIS Report
PM
County 1
Non-Modernized
30
County 1: Update Options
 FIRM Database
OPTION A
• Create FIRM Database
based on new Appendix
L, incorporating all flood
hazard data covering
extents of FIRM panel
updates
County 1
Non-Modernized
• Note: Extent of data
incorporated within FIRM
Database should
correlate with decisions
made on the FIRMs and
FIS Report (inclusion of
full or partial countywide
data)
31
Potential Scenarios
 Effective Studies – FIRM layouts
County 2
Partial CW
County 1
Non-Modernized
County 5
CW
County 3
CW
County 4
Non-Modernized
32
County 2: Update Options
 FIRM Panels
County 2 Effective FIRM Panel Scheme
Partial Countywide
33
OPTION A
• Update only the panels
affected by the new
studies (following quadbased paneling scheme)
and follow guidelines
from PM 46 (Partial
Countywide Mapping
Evaluation) for
remaining panels
OPTION B
• Update all the panels in
the county to countywide
format
County 2: Update Options
 FIRM Panels
• Updated FIRM Panels
follow countywide format
and the new Appendix K
County 2 New FIRM Panel Scheme
Partial Countywide
Updated FIRM Panels
34
County 2: Update Options
 FIS Report
OPTION A
• Follow guidelines of PM
46 (Partial Countywide)
– add-on to previous
partial countywide FIS
Report
OPTION B
• Consolidate all effective
FIS Reports into
countywide format and
update according to FIS
Report PM
County 2
Partial Countywide
35
County 2: Update Options
 FIRM Database
OPTION A
• Update existing partial
countywide database
with new information
OPTION B
• Convert existing
database into new
Appendix L format and
incorporate new data
County 2
Partial Countywide
• Note: Extent of data
incorporated within FIRM
Database should
correlate with decisions
made on the FIRMs and
FIS Report (inclusion of
full or partial countywide
data)
36
Potential Scenarios
 Effective Studies – FIRM layouts
County 2
Partial CW
County 1
Non-Modernized
County 5
CW
County 3
CW
County 4
Non-Modernized
37
County 3: Update Options
 FIRM Panels
County 3 Effective FIRM Panel Scheme
Countywide
38
OPTION A
• Update only the panels
affected by the new
studies to the new FIRM
format
County 3: Update Options
 FIRM Panels
County 3 New FIRM Panel Scheme
Countywide
Updated FIRM Panels
39
• Updated FIRM Panels
follow countywide format
and the new Appendix K
County 3: Update Options
 FIS Report
OPTION A
• If only a small portion of
the county is affected,
keep countywide FIS
Report in old format
OPTION B
• Update the countywide
FIS Report into the new
format according to the
FIS Report PM
County 3
Countywide
• Note: Once a countywide
FIS Report, always a
countywide FIS Report
(partial countywide FIS
Reports not allowed)
40
County 3: Update Options
 FIRM Database
OPTION A
• Convert existing
database into new
Appendix L format and
incorporate new data
OPTION B
• Update existing
countywide FIRM
database with new
information
County 3
Countywide
• Note: Decision on
whether to upgrade to
the new FIRM database
standard should be tied
to decision to upgrade to
new FIS Report format
41
Potential Scenarios
 Effective Studies – FIRM layouts
County 2
Partial CW
County 1
Non-Modernized
County 5
CW
County 3
CW
County 4
Non-Modernized
42
County 4: Update Options
 FIRM Panels, FIS Report, and FIRM Database
OPTION A
• Since no new studies
affect this county, no
FIRM, FIS Report, or
FIRM Database updates
are anticipated
OPTION B
• Modernize county (or the
portions affected by the
watershed) and follow
new Appendix K,
Appendix L, and FIS
Report PM guidelines
and PM 46 (Partial
Countywide) – NOT
COMMON
County 4
Non-Modernized
43
County 5: Update Options
 FIRM Panels, FIS Report, and FIRM Database
OPTION A
• Since no new studies
affect this county, no
FIRM, FIS Report, or
FIRM Database updates
are anticipated
OPTION B
• Update effective
countywide regulatory
products based on new
Appendix K, Appendix L,
and FIS Report PM
guidelines – NOT
COMMON
County 5
Countywide
44
Question and Answer
Questions? Comments? Concerns?
Andy Bonner: andrew.bonner@aecom.com
Scott McAfee: scott.mcafee@dhs.gov
Turgay Dabak: tdabak@mbakercorp.com
45