Risk MAP Highlights and Updates NAFSMA Annual Meeting 2014 Implementing New Water Resources Programs, Policies, and Responsibilities

Transcription

1 Risk MAP Highlights and Updates NAFSMA Annual Meeting 2014 Implementing New Water Resources Programs, Policies, and Responsibilities Doug Bellomo Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration October 16, 2014

2 Overview Risk MAP and the FEMA Strategic Plan Risk MAP Updates Overall Program Progress 3DEP Partnership Coastal Mapping Levee Analysis and Mapping Cooperating Technical Partners New Map Service Center Hazard Mitigation Planning Key Decision Point Process Update Technical Credibility and Community Engagement Investment Analysis Flood Insurance Reforms and Technical Mapping Advisory Council 1

3 Risk MAP is a Key Component to Achieving FEMA s Strategic Priorities Enable disaster risk reduction nationally Objective 4.1 Provide Credible and Actionable Data and Tools to Support Risk-Informed Decision-Making Through collaboration with State, Local, and Tribal entities, Risk MAP will deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action that reduces risk to life and property 2

4 Risk MAP Vision and Goals 3

5 Risk MAP Progress Deployment New, Validated, and/or Updated Engineering Awareness Action The percentage of population where Risk MAP is being deployed Number of mapped miles that meet engineering standards The percentage of local officials in Risk MAP communities who are aware of the flood risk affecting their community after engaging with Risk MAP The total number of communities where Risk MAP processes have helped advance one or more mitigation actions FY14 Performance: 53.4% (Q3 results) FY14 Performance: ~586K miles; 52% of flood map inventory FY14 Performance: 73% FY14 Performance: 429 communities (Q3 results) 4

6 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Partnership Biggest noted benefit to LiDAR: Flood Risk Management with annual benefits between $295-$502 million FEMA is an investor and partner in 3DEP, a national program managed by the USGS to acquire high-resolution elevation data A national enhanced elevation program would provide real efficiencies and improved resolution in flood mapping and very likely lead to innovative tools that build on the flood-risk data 5

7 Coastal Inventory Schedule of Preliminary FIRMs 6

8 Levee Analysis and Mapping Procedures Pilot Projects Pilot Projects 25 pilots were initiated in FY13 upon issuance of Levee Analysis and Mapping Procedures (LAMP) Guidance Final Analysis and Mapping Plans were issued for 4 pilot projects Final Plans for remaining pilots are projected to be issued early 2015 Kaunakakai Pilot LAMP Project Maui County, Hawaii Current Status By the close of FY14, we have initiated 65 levee analysis and mapping projects FY15 target is to initiate approximately 30 additional projects so that by the end of FY15, we ll have nearly 100 projects moving forward via new approach to levee analysis and mapping 7

9 Cooperating Technical Partners (CTPs) CTPs are a key component of the mapping program In FY14, FEMA provided $37 million to 89 CTPs Current considerations for FEMA and the CTPs include: Improving national consistency and transparency while maintaining flexibility Measuring and monitoring performance Adapting to changing laws, regulations, policies, budgets, and science & technology Integrating similar programs yet maintaining distinction among grant programs/activities Developing training and expanding capabilities Fostering collaboration and sharing best practices 8

10 Map Service Center (MSC) Re-Design Original MSC was focused on collecting fees for paper maps online Map Service Center (MSC) is in high demand ¼ of customer orders are from everyday citizens More than 500,000 products distributed in FY million FIRMettes created in FY13 FEMA invested in a significant MSC re-design to improve access 9

11 MSC Redesign Goals Streamline the user experience to access key data Reduce longterm operational costs Design a site that s user friendly for both professionals and homeowners Upgrade technology infrastructure to serve increasing digital needs Redesign benefits all MSC users Search, view, and download all products for free (regulatory and non-regulatory) All-in-one search with direct file downloads from results Simplified navigation Improved access to products Enhanced supporting information 10

12 Hazard Mitigation Planning FEMA is updating the State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance State Mitigation Plan Review Guide- Highlights of Key Concepts is available for public review and comment until 10/17 Key concepts under consideration include strengthening specific requirements for: assessing future risk coordinating and integrating the planning process with the whole community 11

13 Key Decision Point Overview The Key Decision Point (KDP) process is designed to address the need for enhanced transparency and understanding around the decisions to advance forward in a flood risk project A formal method to document decisions at six distinct points throughout a flood risk project s lifecycle Provides a formal framework to: Document decisions made to continue forward during a flood risk project s lifecycle Review project information and decisions periodically Implementation is scheduled for January 2015 Applies to all new and in-progress flood risk projects Applies to Physical Map Revisions (PMR) requiring investment from FEMA to complete Does not apply to Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) projects 12

14 Documentation of KDPs Key decisions are made throughout a flood risk project study Documentation of KDPs will occur at six distinct points 13

15 KDP Guidance and Next Steps KDP Documentation Tool in development Decisions at each KDP will be documented and submitted via SharePoint Allows for progression of data to populate later KDPs KDP Guidance is currently in development Collaborated with Regional personnel to develop KDP processes Scheduled for review mid-november with CTPs and PTS providers The guidance document will: Provide an overview of each KDP Outline timelines for submitting KDPs Describe the review and approval process for the KDPs 14

16 Flood Hazard and Risk Data through Map Mod and Risk MAP FY2004 FY2008 Map Modernization (Map Mod) Vision: Transform the flood hazard mapping inventory to digital technology and restore confidence in the reliability of floodplain boundaries, while making updates to the underlying engineering data. FY2009 Present Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP) Vision: Collaborate with State, Tribal, and local entities, to deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action that reduces risk to life and property. 15

17 Map Mod and Risk MAP Funding Map Mod FY2004 FY2008 ~$748M Over 5 Years Mapping Project Funding ($M)* Risk MAP FY2009 FY2013 ~$722M Over 5 Years ** ** d d d d d d d d d *Dollar amounts reflect Regional allocations for map production work only. This does not include amounts for elements of the program such as FEMA salaries and benefits, program management, customer support, travel/training/equipment, etc. ** Projected amounts from the Multi-Year Flood Hazard Identification Plan (MHIP) which acted as FEMA s business planning tool for sequencing and project funding at the Regional level during Map Mod 16

18 Balancing Technical Services and Community Engagement So much of Risk MAP is focused on driving mitigation actions. Are we forgetting about the mapping that got us here? It s critical to maintain equal focus on community engagement, technical credibility, and maps. There s a need for enhanced community engagement, but have we gone too far? Map Modernization was never finished! 17

19 Comparison of Historical Investment Data from the Mapping Information Platform (MIP) As FEMA s system of record for all project related investments, we used the MIP to group tasks by major program activity Program activities were then aligned to an investment category (technical services or community engagement) Investment Category Technical Services Map Mod Activities (FY FY2008) Mapping Engineering Data Risk MAP Activities (FY FY2013) Mapping Engineering Data Collection Non-Regulatory Products Community Engagement Scoping Discovery Community Engagement Associated project cost data were then totaled for each category and compared by the Fiscal Years during which each program was operational Note: Some Risk MAP projects are in the process of refining their scope based on community input, these projects are not currently shown in the data sets. Regional Support (Map Mod and Risk MAP) is not collected in the system. This data is historically not entered in the MIP. Regional Management Center and Regional Support Center costs are not included 18

20 Comparison Shows Little Change in How The Programs Accomplished Their Work Vehicles Used to Accomplish Program Mission *Dollars shown are representative of production and technical work allocations. Risk Map Program Management (Risk Map PM) and Map Modernization Management Support (MMMS) funds are not included in the grant dollars shown. 19

21 Planned FY14 Risk MAP Investment in Community Engagement FY2004 FY2008 * FY2009 FY2014 *The Risk MAP breakout reflects both FY2009 FY2013 MIP data and planned FY2014 data from FEMA s Project Planning and Purchasing Portal (P4). The P4 is the tool used by the FEMA Regions to capture multi-tiered project scope details and cost estimates. The P4 is the authoritative datasource for tracking performance and investments throughout the multi year planning, 20 annual sequencing and purchasing processes.

22 Key Takeaways from the Investment Analysis Investment split (technical services vs. community engagement) has changed very little from Map Modernization to Risk MAP Overall program funding has declined, perhaps supporting the perception that investments have shifted from technical work to community engagement. The mapping budget in 2013 is half of what it was in The percentage of funding allocated to grants is trending upwards, reflecting greater reliance on mapping partners Planned community engagement investments in FY14 are larger than past years (22% of total in FY14) 21

23 Notice to Congress: Monthly Update on Flood Mapping Delivered first Notice to Congress: Monthly Update on Flood Mapping in June 2014 Provides a summary of upcoming map activities and a report of mapping actions taken in previous month Updated monthly and available on FEMA website: 22

24 Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) The TMAC will review the national flood mapping activities authorized under the law and prepare recommendations to the FEMA Administrator The TMAC will also produce a report on the impacts of climate sciences and future conditions, and how they may be incorporated into the mapping program Comprised of experts from Federal, state, local, academic, and private sector organizations as mandated by legislation and governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements FEMA announced Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) appointments in July 2014 TMAC conducted first meeting September 30-October 1,

25 TMAC Timeline NFIP Reauthorization FY16 Budget Process FY17 Budget Process FY18 Budget Process OCTOBER 2014 OCTOBER 2015 OCTOBER 2016 OCTOBER st TMAC Meeting TMAC Report TMAC Reports TMAC Report TMAC Reports TMAC Report Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards Standards 24

26 TMAC Members by Category Member TMAC Category Title and Organization Doug Bellomo FEMA Designee Director, Risk Analysis Division, FEMA Juliana Blackwell NOAA Designee Director, National Geodetic Survey, NOAA Nancy Blyler USACE Geospatial Community Leader, USACE Richard Butgereit State GIS GIS Administrator, Florida Division of Emergency Management Mark DeMulder USGS USGS National Geospatial Program John Dorman State CTP Director, Emergency Management Division, Geospatial and Technology Management Office, North Carolina State Government Leslie Durham State CTP Director, State Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) Program and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Alabama Scott Edelman Mapping Division Director for North America, AECOM Water Resources Steve Ferryman State Mitigation Officer Mitigation and Recovery Administrator, Emergency Management Agency, State Government of Ohio Gale Wm. Fraser, II Regional Flood and Stormwater Management General Manager and Chief Engineer, Clark County Regional 25 Flood Control District

27 TMAC Members by Category (continued) Member TMAC Category Title and Organization Carrie Grassi Local CTP Senior Policy Advisor, Mayor s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, New York City Christopher Jones Engineering Registered Professional Engineer Howard Kunreuther Risk Management Professor of Decision Sciences and Public Policy, Department of Operations and Information Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Wendy Lathrop Surveying President & Owner, Cadastral Consulting, LLC David Mallory Local CTP Senior Project Engineer, Urban Drainage & Flood Control District s Floodplain Management Program, Denver, Colorado Robert Mason DOI Designee Deputy Chief, Office of Surface Water, Department of Interior (DOI) Sally Ann McConkey Floodplain Management Illinois State Water Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Christine Shirley Cheryl Small State NFIP Coordination Office Flood Hazards Determination NFIP Coordinator, Oregon State Vice President of Operations, CoreLogic Flood Services 26

28 For More Information FEMA Map Service Center: FEMA Risk MAP webpage: Flood Insurance Reform webpage: 27

29 28