Floodplain Mapping Status in Wisconsin
•Descargar como PPT, PDF•
1 recomendación•430 vistas
2011 Annual - Floodplain Mapping Status in Wisconsin
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Some Statistics From Recent Events]()
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Floodplain Mapping Status in Wisconsin
Similar a Floodplain Mapping Status in Wisconsin (20)
Más de Wisconsin Land Information Association
Más de Wisconsin Land Information Association (20)
Último
Último (20)
Floodplain Mapping Status in Wisconsin
- 1. Floodplain Mapping Status in Wisconsin Amanda Schwoegler Floodplain Mapping Project Coordinator, WDNR WLIA - 2/17/2011
- 6. Countywide Watershed Geographic Approach
- 7. Program Goals and Measures
- 8. Risk MAP Lifecycle Focus on Better Risk Communication Transfer Risk Reduce Risk Map Risk Data Risk MAP REDUCE LOSS OF LIFE & PROPERTY Goal – Measure Quantifiable Risk Reduction Assess Present & Future Risks Plan for Risk 2 Assess Risk 3 Communicate Risk 4 Mitigate Risk 1 Identify Risk
- 9. Traditional products are regulatory and subject to statutory due-process requirements Risk MAP products are non-regulatory and are not subject to statutory due-process requirements Traditional Regulatory Products Non-Regulatory Products Risk MAP Program Product Comparisons
- 11. Data Fields Include Example Data Values Old Study Date e.g. 1985 Old Model Type(s) e.g. HEC-1 / HEC-2 Old Zone Type e.g. Zone A Old Topography e.g. USGS 10-ft New Study Info/Methods Dates, Models, etc. New Study Zone e.g. Zone AE New Topography e.g. LiDAR 2-ft New Study Engineering Factors / Changes e.g. new structures, gages, topo, landuse, etc. Estimated Structures e.g. 9 Estimated Population e.g. 27 Enhanced
- 15. WHERE ARE WE NOW? Nationwide KPI 1: 92% of Nation’s Population with Digital GIS Flood Data KPI 2: 87% of Population with Adopted Maps that Meet Quality Standards by end of FFY11. Wisconsin 50 counties will have Digital GIS Flood Data by end of 2011 11 counties will have Digital GIS Flood Data by end of 2013 New studies throughout the Upper and Lower Rock Watersheds
- 20. Mellen (Ashland Co.) 1946 Darlington (Lafayette Co.) 1990 Gays Mills (Crawford Co.) 2007 QUESTIONS???
Notas del editor
- This is the RiskMAP Lifecycle. I’ll go through each portion in more detail.
- Changes Since Last Map – green = areas where SFHA has decreased; yellow = areas where SFHA has increased 1) Helps highlight areas where zone designation has changed, increased/decreased: 2) stores rationale for change including a) whether new engineering was performed and b) or if updated topo since last map was applied (redelineation). 3) Allows communities to estimate number of a) population and b) structure counts for each area of change. 4) Helps w/ outreach 5) Helps identify areas that are at risk that were previously unidentified
- As a companion to the changes since last map dataset, the Engineering Factors attributes will provide additional modeling and engineering information to the end users of the maps with possible explanations as to why the floodplain has changed. – WHEN YOU MAKE THIS POINT, YOU NEED TO CLARIFY HOW THE FACTORS RELATE TO EACH POLYGON. MEANING, THEY DON’T GET INTO THE DETAILS OF WHICH FACTOR REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF THAT CHANGE. ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS THAT, IT WOULD GIVE YOU A HIGH-LEVEL IDEA OF THE “POTENTIAL” FACTORS BASED ON THE NEW STUDY ALONG THAT STRECTCH OF STREAM. “ For example, upstream of where a new bridge went in that wasn’t shown or accounted for in the effective study, you would expect to see an attribute highlighting that fact in the change polygons upstream (and possibly even downstream) of that bridge. In areas where new topography was used for the modeling and/or boundary delineation, you would expect to see an attribute indicating that new topography was used for that area. For a reach of stream where the hydrology significantly changed as compared to the effective study, you might expect to see something in the change polygons along that stream indicating that the methodology changed, or that a new stream gage is now available for that stream, etc. Because we are capturing the information collected through the CNMS process, we will be able to report on what methodologies and conditions were in place at the time of the effective study, along with the engineering information for the new studies, such that a user will be able to see the engineering side of “what changed” from a simple investigation of the information within the attribute tables.” Was a new culvert included in the model? Or was a levee or dam taken into account? Make reference to tables as depicting “CONTRIBUTING ENGINEERING FACTORS”. Make reference the ‘intentional’ similarity and alignment to CNMS validation. Results all partners to engage in that important conversation of “Why is the floodplain changing”.
- Summary of standard vs. enhanced data within the database Early Demonstration Projects may reveal that some of these datasets should move from the enhanced to the base list in future years, or that there are other datasets that should be offered