Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page 41) “There are many, many areas of the country where good topo, beyond the national minimums, already exists.” Larry Larson, executive director, Association of State Floodplain Managers funding to $400 million per year for fiscal 2008 through 2013. The Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 directs FEMA to establish an ongoing program to review, update and maintain the FIRMs. Among other items, it also requires FEMA to raise the NFIP’s insurance coverage limits; phase out insurance subsidies for vacation homes, second homes and nonresidential properties; and submit annual financial reports on the NFIP. Although FEMA ultimately is responsible for keeping flood maps current, state and local governments, working with privatesector partners, do the bulk of the work and share the costs with the federal government, Larson said. When engineers study updating the FIRMs, hydrology and hydraulics receive significant attention. The first asks, “If X inches of rain fall, what volume of water will that add to the local stream?” The second asks, “When you add that volume of water, how high will the stream rise?” A third factor is land elevation, or topography. Topography matters because, for example, if a house stands atop a knoll that puts it 10 feet higher than the surrounding land, it’s less likely to flood than another house the same distance from the river on lower ground. During hearings before the House Financial Services Subcommittee in June, Maune testified that as FEMA updates the FIRMs, it should include elevation data collected using the latest geospatial technologies. Maune spoke on behalf of MAPPS (originally called the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors), an association of private firms that provides spatial data and GISs. These firms provide technology and services to governments when they update their flood maps. In particular, MAPPS favors using light detection and ranging (lidar) technology to collect new topographic data. In a lidar system, sensors installed on a plane emit 150,000 pulses of laser light per second, scanning the terrain below to collect elevation data. Software then eliminates readings obtained from foliage and structures to calculate the elevation of the bare ground. Efficient and Accurate The most accurate way to collect elevation data is on the ground, using traditional surveying techniques, said John Dorman, director of the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping program. Still, he said, lidar can cover a great deal more ground at a lower cost, and it’s much more accurate than the method the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) used to collect much of the topographic data used in today’s FIRMs. That’s why the Floodplain Mapping Program used lidar to collect elevation data for all of North Carolina. “We have accuracy that people really can’t beat,” Dorman said. “It feeds really well into the engineering model.” North Carolina funded the collection of elevation data with $5 million from the Innovative Partnerships program at USGS and completed the work in 2005. Some elevation data used in today’s FIRMs dates from the 1970s, when the USGS used photogrammetric technology, Maune said. Lidar offers the ability to represent changes in elevation much more precisely, he said. Precision is especially important in very flat terrain In some communities, new topographic data would provide better maps, Larson said. “The engineering wouldn’t be any better, but it makes the depiction better.” For ASFM, the big concern is that money for acquiring new elevation data should not come from FEMA’s mapping program budget. “There simply isn’t enough there,” Larson said. Along with North Carolina, several other states have raised their own funds IMAGE COURTESY OF DODSON & ASSOCIATES INC. “Homeowners continuously complain that their maps are obsolete.” David Maune, senior project manager for remote sensing, Dewberry such as coastal Florida, where a half-foot of elevation could mean the difference between hurricane-related flooding staying near shore or rushing far inland. Though Larson agrees that collecting more accurate elevation data is a good idea, he doesn’t share Maune’s sense of urgency on the issue. “New topo, better topo, is always useful,” he said, “although there are many, many areas of the country where good topo, beyond the national minimums, already exists.” the data,” Dorman said. “I don’t think the federal government has its ducks in a row now, but that’s the approach that needs to be taken.” “Nobody is arguing that FEMA ought to solve what is basically a nationwide problem,” Maune said. “It’s something that OMB [Office of Management and Budget] is going to have to work out with a lot of different appropriations.” CONTRIBUTING WRITER MERRILL DOUGLAS IS BASED IN UPSTATE NEW YORK. SHE SPECIALIZES IN APPLICATIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY . j 41 to acquire new topographic data using Lidar. But all states and local communities, and many other federal agencies besides FEMA, need this data for a variety of purposes. “I believe that there needs to be federal funding, either through FEMA or through USGS, that allows states to partner and share the costs, but also share the benefit of As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s move toward digital technology for processing requests for floodplain map changes, Dodson & Associates Inc. is preparing a re-study of the Brays Bayou watershed in Harris County, Texas. The work involves a completely digital database of ground elevations and other data, much of which has been obtained by light detection and ranging (lidar) sensing technologies. http://www.govtech.com
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Government Technology - October 2007 Contents Point of View Big Picture The Last Mile GT Spectrum Letters How It Works Cerf on the Net Way Back Machine Separation Anxiety Let's Roll Rising to the Challenge Wednesday Afternoon Fever Parking Possibilities Products Signal: Noise Government Technology - October 2007 Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page CW1) Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page CW2) Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page CW3) Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page CW4) Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page 1) Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page 2) Government Technology - October 2007 - (Page 3) Government Technology - October 2007 - Contents (Page 4) Government Technology - October 2007 - Contents (Page 5) Government Technology - October 2007 - Contents (Page 6) Government Technology - October 2007 - Contents (Page 7) Government Technology - October 2007 - Point of View (Page 8) Government Technology - October 2007 - Point of View (Page 9) Government Technology - October 2007 - Big Picture (Page 10) Government Technology - October 2007 - Big Picture (Page 11) Government Technology - October 2007 - The Last Mile (Page 12) Government Technology - October 2007 - The Last Mile (Page 13) Government Technology - October 2007 - GT Spectrum (Page 14) Government Technology - October 2007 - GT Spectrum (Page 15) Government Technology - October 2007 - Letters (Page 16) Government Technology - October 2007 - Letters (Page 17) Government Technology - October 2007 - How It Works (Page 18) Government Technology - October 2007 - How It Works (Page 19) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 20) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 21) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 22) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 23) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 24) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 25) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 26) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 27) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 28) Government Technology - October 2007 - Cerf on the Net (Page 29) Government Technology - October 2007 - Way Back Machine (Page 30) Government Technology - October 2007 - Way Back Machine (Page 31) Government Technology - October 2007 - Separation Anxiety (Page 32) Government Technology - October 2007 - Separation Anxiety (Page 33) Government Technology - October 2007 - Separation Anxiety (Page 34) Government Technology - October 2007 - Separation Anxiety (Page 35) Government Technology - October 2007 - Separation Anxiety (Page 36) Government Technology - October 2007 - Separation Anxiety (Page 37) Government Technology - October 2007 - Let's Roll (Page 38) Government Technology - October 2007 - Let's Roll (Page 39) Government Technology - October 2007 - Rising to the Challenge (Page 40) Government Technology - October 2007 - Rising to the Challenge (Page 41) Government Technology - October 2007 - Wednesday Afternoon Fever (Page 42) Government Technology - October 2007 - Wednesday Afternoon Fever (Page 43) Government Technology - October 2007 - Wednesday Afternoon Fever (Page 44) Government Technology - October 2007 - Wednesday Afternoon Fever (Page 45) Government Technology - October 2007 - Parking Possibilities (Page 46) Government Technology - October 2007 - Parking Possibilities (Page 47) Government Technology - October 2007 - Products (Page 48) Government Technology - October 2007 - Products (Page 49) Government Technology - October 2007 - Signal: Noise (Page 50) Government Technology - October 2007 - Signal: Noise (Page 51) Government Technology - October 2007 - Signal: Noise (Page 52)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.