Colusa County Levee Outreach Presentation - FEMA Region 9

Levee Briefing & DWR
Study Meeting
Colusa County
January 24, 2013

Topics
• Welcome & Introductions
• Project Background and History
• Levee Certification Requirements
• Procedure Memo 43
• FEMA’s Draft Levee Mapping Guidance
• Status of Levees in Colusa County
• Roles & Responsibilities
• Next Steps
• DWR Analyses
• Overview of Map Revision Process
• NFIP Outreach Information
• Questions
2

Welcome and Introductions
FEMA Region IX
Kathy Schaefer – Engineer, Study Manager
Eric Simmons – Engineer
Bob Durrin – Natural Hazards Program Specialist
Edie Lohmann – Insurance Liaison
USACE – Sacramento District
Judy Soutierre – Flood Risk Program Manager
California Department of Water Resources
Bill O’Leary – Hydraulic Engineer
Rummy Sandhu – Engineer
CH2M Hill
Bill Fox – Project Manager
Mark Glidden – Technical Manager
Production and Technical Services (PTS) contractor
Sarah Houghland – Colusa County Study Manager
Lisa Messano – Outreach Coordinator
Community Representatives
Colusa County
Please Fill-in the Sign-In Sheet with your Contact Information
0
3

The National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP)
The primary goal of the NFIP is to reduce the loss of life and property.
This goal is communicated to the public via Flood Insurance Rate Maps
and Flood Insurance Studies.
4

Project Background & History
• Map Modernization update:
May 15, 2003
• Upgrade paper FIRMs to DFIRMs
• Create 1 seamless countywide
FIS report and DFIRM
Orthophoto Basemap
Street Basemap
5

Project Background & History
• Outstanding Issues
• Convert the vertical reference
datum for the flood elevation data
from NGVD 29 to NAVD 88
• Levees accreditation status was not
evaluated for the County
• Questions concerning the validity of
the SFHAs in Arbuckle, Maxwell &
Williams
6

Project Background & History
• June 10, 2010 Mapping Needs Priority Meeting
• Meeting Objectives:
• Current Effective Data
• Assessment of Effective Detailed Studies (County Assessment)
• DWR (CVFED)
• Project Timeline and Expectations
• Levees
• Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) timeline
• Future Mapping Prioritization
7

Levees
Public Safety Depends on Accurately
Depicting the Risks Associated with Levees
8

Levees – What Could Go Wrong
• No levee system provides full protection
• Levees decay over time
• Levees are designed for a specific flood event and can
be overtopped or breached in larger events
• Upstream development in the watershed increases the
runoff velocity, depth & volume
• Vegetation in stream channels increases the flood
hazard
• Other Impacts:
• Erosion and weathering
• Siltation
• Subsidence
• Under seepage
• Deferred maintenance
9

Key Levee Terminology
• Provides Protection: levee on FIRM that is shown as able to sustain
forces associated with the 1% annual chance flood with required
freeboard
• Freeboard: a factor of safety in levee design height usually expressed in
feet above a flood level
• Certification: documentation from a registered PE stating that a levee
will, with reasonable certainty, provide protection against 1% annual
chance flood (as per 44 CFR 65.10)
• Accreditation: FEMA recognition of a certified levee on a FIRM as
providing protection against 1% annual chance flood
• Revalidation: the process of re-accrediting a levee by reviewing current
levee data against 44 CFR 65.10 requirements
10

44 Code of Federal Regulations –
65.10
• Current rules for mapping areas protected by levees
were codified in Federal Regulation (44 CFR 65.10) in
1986
• FEMA will only accredit those levee systems that
meet, and continue to meet, minimum design,
operation, and maintenance standards consistent with
the 1% annual chance flood
11

44 Code of Federal Regulations –
65.10
• For a levee to be shown as providing protection from the 1% annual
chance flood, FEMA must have documentation demonstrating:
• It is designed to withstand forces associated with the 1% annual chance flood
(height, stability, and embankment protection)
• It has adequate freeboard (e.g. levee height is 3+ feet above design flood stage)
• All closure devices function properly – no weak links or holes
• Interior drainage systems (pumps and canals) are functioning
• Operation and Maintenance plans are adequate and in place
• Operation and Maintenance must be the responsibility of a public entity
12

Levee Certification
Certification documentation should:
• Document that levee or flood control system meets Federal design,
construction, maintenance, and operations standards to provide protection from
a flood of 1% annual chance or greater
• Standards are outlined in 44 CFR 65.10
• Be based on investigations and review of the current levee condition by a
registered professional
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are based on
current conditions and reflect the existing risk.
13

Levee Accreditation
Once FEMA receives levee certification package from a
community, levee owner:
• FEMA performs a “completeness” review
• FEMA accredits levees based on certification submittal findings received
• FEMA reviews against 44 CFR 65.10
• FEMA accreditation review checklist is included in Procedure
Memorandum 63
14

Current Levee Status is Not Clear
• Existing FIRMs may depict levees that have never been
evaluated for compliance against these regulations
• Certification documentation is outdated or missing
altogether
• Most levees have not been re-certified since originally
accredited on flood maps 5, 10, or 20 years ago
• It is now time to revalidate old levee certifications
15

Levees
Levees Currently Shown as Providing
Protection Fall into 2 Buckets
• Levees that were recognized on a
FIRM, but never certified (pre-1986)
• These levees need to be certified to be
accredited
• Levees that were accredited using
FEMA’s 1986 levee standards
• Levee certification needs to be revalidated
16

Levees
• The goal for both the pre- and post-1986 levees is to certify that they
currently meet FEMA standards
• It is expected that most post-1986 levees (those that have been certified) will be able
to meet FEMA standards with minimal effort
• A P.E. must state that the original certification data are still valid
• It is expected that most pre-1986 levees (those that were never certified) will require
much more time for the certification process
• Most likely via the LOMR process
17

Provisionally Accredited Levees –
Procedure Memo 43
• PM 43 Issued on September 25, 2006
• PM 43 aims to minimize the impact of levee
recognition and certification process on Map Mod
program goals
• PM 43 allows FEMA to issue preliminary and effective
DFIRMs while some levee owners or communities are
updating or supplementing 44 CFR 65.10
documentation
18

Provisionally Accredited Levees –
Procedure Memo 43
• Levees that are
reasonably expected to
provide 1% annual
chance flood protection
can be given the
Provisionally Accredited
Levee (PAL) designation
on a DFIRM
• Areas landward of levees
shown as Zone X (shaded)
with a warning note, for up to
2 years
19

Provisionally Accredited Levees –
Procedure Memo 43
• FEMA is coordinating with USACE to identify those
levees that are in the USACE PL 84-99 program that
do not provide protection from the 1% annual chance
flood
• Levees that are no longer eligible for the USACE PL
84-99 program will not meet the 44 CFR 65.10 FEMA
levee requirements
20

FIVE PM 43 SCENARIOS
Non-
USACE
Levees
USACE Program Levees
A: Non-USACE Levees showing base flood protection:
• A1: Levee owner does not request the Maintenance Deficiency Correction Period.
• A2: Levee owner requests the Maintenance Deficiency Correction Period.
B: Levees in USACE Program that are eligible for PAL
C: Levees in USACE Program with known deficiencies:
C1: USACE does not grant the Maintenance Deficiency Correction Period.
C2: USACE grants the Maintenance Deficiency Correction Period.
D: Levees in USACE Program not showing base flood
protection
E: Levees in USACE Program that do not meet adequate level
of protection but are showing base flood protection
PAL
Eligible (A, B)
Not PAL
Eligible (C, D, E)
21

Provisionally Accredited Levees – Procedure
Memo 43
• Levees recognized on the Effective FIRMs may be given a PAL
designation if:
• there is no evidence from USACE, State Agencies or other sources to indicate the
levee does not meet FEMA standards, at this time
• the levee owner is willing to state to the best of their knowledge that the levee
meets all FEMA standards by signing the formal PAL Agreement
22

Provisionally Accredited Levees –
Procedure Memo 43
• If the levee qualifies for the PAL designation, there are
two options to extend FEMA accreditation:
• Apply for full accreditation by submitting the certification data right away
• This is the preferred approach
• Apply for provisional accreditation by signing a PAL agreement w/i 90 days
of being offered the PAL and submit the certification data w/i 2 years
Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) Timeline:
23

Provisionally Accredited Levees –
Procedure Memo 43
• If the levee does not meet
the PAL requirements & can
not be offered the PAL:
• In the past, the area
landward of the levee
was shown as Zone A or
AE
• Now, the pending levee
guidance will provide new
guidelines for showing the
SFHA landward of levee
24

Provisionally Accredited Levees –
Procedure Memo 43
• If a signed PAL agreement is not returned to FEMA
within 90 days of when it is offered:
• The levee will no longer be eligible for the PAL designation and area
landward of the levee may be shown as a Zone A (or AE in the future)
• Areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event.
Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply.
• If 44 CFR 65.10 certification data is not submitted
to and approved by FEMA within 24 months after
the 90 day PAL agreement deadline ends:
• The area landward of the levee may be shown as a Zone A (or AE in the
future)
25

Maintenance Deficiency
• If a non-USACE levee is believed to be certifiable
except for maintenance deficiencies the levee owner
may request a 1 year grace period to remedy those
deficiencies.
• Non-USACE levee owners have 1 year from the end
of the 90-day PAL offer period to remedy maintenance
deficiencies and submit a PAL agreement
26

Levee Mapping Options
1) Certify and Accredit
2) Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL)
3) One year maintenance correction then PAL
4) De-accredit
27

Roles & Responsibilities
• Who certifies levees
• Not FEMA
• If all 44 CFR 65.10 data are sufficient, FEMA accredits levees by depicting them as
providing protection against the 1% annual chance flood
• Data are “…supplied to FEMA by the community or other party seeking
recognition…”
28

Roles & Responsibilities
• FEMA is responsible for:
• Establishing mapping standards
• Establishing & depicting appropriate risk zone determinations on FIRMs
• Accrediting or not accrediting levees as providing protection
• FEMA is not responsible for:
• Designing, operating, maintaining or certifying levee systems
• Inspecting levees
• Determining how a structure or system will perform in flood event
• The Party responsible for operating and maintaining
the levee must be:
• Federal or State agency
• Agency created by Federal or State law
• Agency of a community participating in the NFIP
29

Roles and Responsibilities
• Community or Levee Owner/Operator:
• Responsible for Levee Certification
• Responsible for Levee Operation and Maintenance
• Responsible for Additional Outreach to the General Public and Other Local
Constituents
30

Status of Levees in My
Community
Available at:
Insert levee map
www.r9map.org
> California > Colusa
31

GIS Edits to Levee Segments
If changes are necessary to the geometry or attribution for any of the levee
segments:
•Contact GIS Specialists
listed at the bottom of the
information collection sheets
•They can make changes to
the database based on
your direction
32

Action Items for Community
Officials
• Provide copy of 44CFR 65.10 Levee Certification
Requirements to owners of protecting levees
• Send email to Sarah Houghland confirming owner
and point of contact for each levee segment shown
on Colusa County levee presentation map
• Provide Region IX (Kathy Schaefer) with all levee
certification documents, backup data and
statements of intent to certify or not certify the
levees currently shown as providing protection
33

What’s Next
• 2 nd Round Meeting for Floodplain Management
Professionals
• Determine if any levees are PAL eligible
• Yes - The PAL offer will be extended to communities
• No - The draft revised levee mapping guidelines come
into play
34

New FEMA Levee Guidance
• The entire “Revised Analysis and Mapping Procedures for Non-
Accredited Levees” available through the FEMA library at:
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.doid=4954
• There are on-line recorded webinars overviewing the approaches
available for viewing and further reference available through the
FEMA library at:
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.doid=5009
• Public Comment period ended on January 30, 2012
Comments are in review and may change things that are
discussed and presented today
35

Why Modify our Current Approach
• Throughout Map Modernization,
stakeholders expressed concern on the
“without-levee” procedures used to map
non-accredited levees
• In February 2011, a group of U.S.
Representatives and Senators wrote to
FEMA requesting a revision to the current
practice of mapping levees and their
associated flood risk.
• Stakeholders and Congress felt the
historical mapping approach did not
reflect the hazard reduction that some
non-accredited levees may still afford.
36

Process – Development of New Approach
• FEMA placed on-going studies that include non-accredited levees
on-hold.
• FEMA established a Project Team that:
• Comprised of FEMA, US Army Corps of Engineers, Industry and other
experts
• Explored a spectrum of possible approaches;
• Evaluated the approach scenarios;
• Assessed the feasibility and implementation through “proof of concept”
case studies;
• Sought feedback from internal and external audiences.
37

Requirements for New Approach
• The new Approach had to be:
• Flexible;
• Collaborative
• Understandable and explainable
• Local knowledge and data should be included
• Must address both riverine and coastal levees
• FEMA’s Constraints:
• No statutory or regulatory changes
• Cost-effective
• Repeatable
• 44 CFR 65.10 remains in effect for full levee accreditation
• Cannot make changes to the overarching National Flood
Insurance Program
38

The New Approach is NOT:
• Not a holistic solution for levee issues in the NFIP:
• “Phase 2” will be initiated to discuss a
comprehensive NFIP solution for levees
• National Academy of Sciences study has been
kicked-off
• NFIP Reform
• Not a solution addressing all of the
recommendations received from Levee Task
Force or National Committee on Levee Safety
• Not a communication of the broad risks
associated with levees and potential failures
39

External Reviews & Stakeholder Engagement
• Feasibility Review – FEMA and USACE review to ensure
consistency with the Feasibility Criteria (completed)
• Independent Scientific Body – focused on technical aspects
solution (completed)
• Community Roundtable – focus group related to community
impacts and input(completed)
• Public Review - approach posted online for general public review
and comment, includes 3 Online Forums (completed)
• Public review comment period ended January 30, 2012
• 160 submittals with 1400+ comments received
40

What’s New about this New Process
• Interactive stakeholder engagement throughout the analysis and
mapping process:
• FEMA will engage community officials and decision makers in a
collaborative discussion
• A suite of analysis and mapping procedures of the hazard
associated with levees will be reviewed with the interested parties
• Intention is to recognize of the uncertainty associated with
hazard identification behind levees.
• New Development – Allows communities to split a levee system
into distinct reaches that are analyzed based on the attributes of
the specific reach.
41

Data Collection & Stakeholder Engagement
Levee
Stakeholder
Coordination
Data
Collection
Data
Analysis
Meeting and Field
Reconnaissance
Completion of
Levee Report
and Database
42

Local Levee Working Group
• Purpose
• Provide feedback and data so FEMA can make a final decision on
how the levee system should be modeled and how the leveeimpacted
area should be mapped.
• Participants
• CEO or designee (decision making authority)
• Levee owner
• Floodplain manager
• Local engineer
• FEMA regional representative
• USACE representative (if appropriate)
• CTP or FEMA contractor for project
• Others as determined by the community or region
43

Scope of Work for Next Colusa
Revision
• Build on the Digital Data created during the 2003 update
• Conversion from NGVD29 datum to NAVD88 datum
• Include PAL notes (if necessary)
• Include new floodplain mapping as a result of levee
deaccreditation analyses (if necessary)
• Include the FEMA/DWR CTP studies presented today
• Incorporate other data studies from the communities (if
necessary)
44

For More Information
• Sarah Houghland, Colusa County Study Manager
– Phone: 720-514-1129
– Email: slhoughland@mbakercorp.com
• Online resources:
FEMA Region IX DFIRM/Levee
Outreach Web Site:
FEMA Levee Information:
FloodSmart, Levee Information:
Mapping Information Platform (MIP):
FEMA Map Service Center (MSC):
www.r9map.org
http://www.fema.gov/living-levees-its-shared-responsibility/
www.floodsmart.gov
http://www.hazards.fema.gov
http://www.msc.fema.gov
45