Risk MAP in the Tug Fork Watershed: One CTP, Two FEMA Regions

Risk MAP in the Tug Fork Watershed:
One CTP, Two FEMA Regions, Three
States
Kristen Martinenza, P.E., CFM
FEMA Region IV
[email protected]
Lee Brancheau, GISP, CFM
FEMA Region III
[email protected]
Carey Johnson
Kentucky Division of Water
[email protected]
Tug Fork Watershed
 The Tug Fork Watershed
contains or touches:
 9 counties
 15 cities
 3 states (KY, WV, VA)
 2 FEMA Regions (III &
IV)
 907 total stream miles
studied
 Over 85,000
residents
Developing the Scope
 Coordination between KDOW,
FEMA Region IV, FEMA Region
III, and RAMPP regarding needs
and resources
 MAS co-signed by FEMA Region
III and IV
 Tug Fork identified as major
need through CNMS
• 6 foot “waterfall” between Pike
County, KY and Mingo County,
WV
Coordination of Core Stakeholder
Group
 Consisted of: KDOW (NFIP and Risk MAP), WV NFIP and
SHMO, FEMA Region IIII, FEMA Region IV, RAMPP
 Monthly coordination conference calls
 Data sharing and assimilation
 QA/QC
 Schedules
Discovery
 Significant coordination with states




and FEMA regions
In addition to letters and emails,
calls were made to the
communities to explain the process
and KDOW’s role in other states
As a result of the phone calls, more
information, including AoMIs,
obtained through interviews with
stakeholders
Interviews initiated relationships
with the local communities
Breakout sessions during Discovery
meetings facilitated additional data
collection with communities
Risk MAP Studies and Products
 Basin-wide hydrologic (gage analysis) study
 95 miles of new detailed study (Tug Fork main stem)
 60 miles of leverage USACE data (Tug Fork)
 Regulatory products in KY and WV
• KDOW (CTP) in KY
• RAMPP/RIII in WV
 Non-regulatory products in KY and WV
• For all newly studied areas
• Incorporation of existing depth grids in WV
 Basin-wide Flood Risk Database, Flood Risk Map, Flood Risk Report
• CSLF
• Depth and analysis grids
• Risk Assessment (HAZUS)
• AOMIs
Resilience
 Conducted prior to
distribution of preliminary
regulatory products
 Coordination with entire
stakeholder group
 Breakout sessions during
meetings facilitated
additional data collection
with communities
 Reviewed data collected from
stakeholders with updated
maps and refined AoMIs
Buchanan County, Va.
Bradshaw, W.Va.
Davy, W.Va.
Delbarton, W.Va.
Fort Gay, W.Va.
Iaeger, W.Va.
Kermit, W.Va.
Keystone, W.Va.
Kimball, W.Va.
Gary, W.Va.
Inez, Ky.
Welch, W.Va.
Williamson, W.Va.
Lawrence County, Ky.
Martin County, Ky.
McDowell County, Ky.
Mercer County, W.Va.
Mingo County, W.Va.
Northfolk, W.Va.
War, W.Va.
Warfield, W.Va.
Pike County, Ky.
Tazewell County, Va.
Wayne County, W.Va.
Anawalt, W. Va.
Changes Since Last FIRM (CSLF)
Depth and Analysis Grids
Risk Assessment
Town of Kermit (Mingo County), WV
1% annual chance flood
loss values ($):
•
•
Residential Losses –
Residential Total – 608,000



•
•
Commercial Losses –
Commercial Total – 0



•
•
•
•
Building – 0
Contents – 0
Business Disruption – 0
Other Losses –
Other Total – 286,000



•
Building – 392000
Contents – 216000
Business Disruption – 0
Building – 0
Contents – 275,000
Business Disruption – 11,000
Building + Content Losses –
883,000
Total Losses – 894,000
Loss Ratio – 34%
Risk Assessment
Losses by Census Block
Losses by County
Areas of Mitigation Interest (AOMI)
•
Levees
•
Dams
•
Stream flow constriction
•
Past Claims hot spots
•
Essential Facilities
•
Other Flood Risk Areas
171 AOMIs
Identified
Communication to Stakeholders
 Fact Sheets developed for each
community
 Learning modules via YouTube
 Email, phone calls, webinars, in-
person
Findings
 Changes to SFHAs
 Watershed is prone to
disasters
 Many sensitive areas
 Steep slopes conducive to
flash floods
 Multiple repetitive losses and
severe repetitive losses
 Chances for improvements to
ordinances
 Opportunities to participate
in the CRS program
 Opportunities for Section
406 Mitigation
Challenges
 Different procedures and preferences between FEMA
regions
 Various stages and progression of Risk MAP implementation
for each state
 Varying implementation of hazard mitigation planning
 Data collection
 Communication
 Identifying pertinent data sources
 Stakeholder engagement
Successes
 Coordination between regions to develop well defined scope
 Coordination between two FEMA regions and three states
(Core stakeholder group)
 Data collection
 Communication
 Engaging stakeholders in other states
 Credible, useful products
 Identification of mitigation actions
Path Forward
 Distribute preliminary regulatory products in KY and WV
(June - July 2014)
 Quarterly core stakeholder coordination
 Address comments/appeals
 Continue working with stakeholders to advance mitigation
actions
 Incorporation of flood risk data into local mitigation plans
Acknowledgements
 Kristen Martinenza – FEMA RIV
 Lee Brancheau – FEMA RIII
 Jon Janowicz – FEMA RIII
 Kevin Sneed – WV NFIP Coordinator
 Brian Penix – WV SHMO
 Charley Banks – VA NFIP Coordinator
 Geni Jo Brawner – KY SHMO
 Donald Syriani – RAMPP
 Phil Hipley – RAMPP
 URS - Louisville
Questions?
Risk MAP in the Tug Fork
Watershed: One CTP, Two FEMA
Regions, Three States

Download Report