minnesota map modernization business plan - floods · minnesota map modernization plan for updating...

Minnesota Map Modernization Plan for Updating the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps

January 2004

Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesDNR Waters

Minnesota Map ModernizationBusiness Plan

Minnesota Map ModernizationBusiness Plan


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 1971, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) inMinnesota have provided basic information tocommunity zoning and building officials, lendinginstitutions and insurance providers to use in decisionmaking regarding development in floodplains. Someupdating of the maps has occurred in the ensuing years,but many of the maps have data that is out-of-date and/or insufficient for the current development needs. MapModernization is intended to update the FIRMs, as wellas transfer the information into electronic format.

The Minnesota Map Modernization Plan describes thestrategy for cost effectively updating the FIRMs inMinnesota. The mission statement for Minnesota MapModernization is as follows:

To produce (for every Minnesota county) accurate,digital countywide floodplain maps that are usable tolocal officials, lending institutions and insuranceagents and to produce them using availableinformation and new information, including highresolution digital elevation data, funded from FEMA’sMap Modernization Program funds.

Minnesota needs the information on the maps beupdated when the transfer to the electronic formatoccurs and want all identified floodplain areas to haveat a minimum estimated Base Flood Elevations.Minnesota intends to become a Cooperating TechnicalPartner (CTP) State, and manage and coordinate CTPactivities in the state. CTP funds would be used tosupport a State Mapping Engineer to manage andcoordinate mapping activities and a Hydraulic Engineerto determine Base Flood Elevations for Limited Detailstudy areas.

PRESENT STATUS OF

MINNESOTA FLOODPLAIN MAPS

Minnesota’s Age Distribution ofFEMA Floodplain Maps

5%9%

< 5 yrs

20%10-15 yrs

66%>15 yrs

9%, <5 years5%, 5-10 years

20%, 10-15 years66%, >15 years

In many cases, the older maps reflect outdated floodhazard information that limits their utility forfloodplain management and insurance purposes.Additionally, most of the flood hazard maps wereprepared using now-outdated base maps, road networkinformation and manual cartographic techniques, whichmake the maps difficult and inaccurate for the state,floodplain communities and customers to use andexpensive for FEMA to maintain.

FEMA’s flood hazard maps are essential tools for floodhazard mitigation, local building officials, lendinginstitutions and insurance agents. As shown in thefigure below, most of the flood hazard maps inMinnesota have become greatly outdated reducing theirutility.

About two-thirds of the maps are older than 15 yearsand over four-fifths older than 10 years.

1

5-10yrs


This plan is prepared to assist FEMA in developingregional and national plans for implementing the MapModernization Program. This plan summarizesMinnesota’s role in completing the required mappingactivities and how these activities will be managed andperformed. This plan identifies mapping priorities,explains how these priorities were established, andoutlines an approach for addressing these mappingpriorities. This plan addresses how implementing thepriorities meets the sub-program element performancemeasures FEMA established in December 2003.

There are five objectives in the Minnesota FloodplainMap Modernization Plan.

1) The maps will be digital and countywide.Municipalities will be remapped as part of the countymaps. This helps with continuity of data at the edge ofmunicipal boundaries and easy modification of mapsafter annexations. FEMA’s new map panel scheme willbe used. In Minnesota we recommend not mappingDFIRM panels where the entire area is VoyageursNational Park, or state and federal forests with no orlittle development potential.

2) The map delineation will be based on a DigitalElevation Model (DEM) used to produce contour maps

OBJECTIVES

To address this problem, FEMA has initiated the FloodMap Modernization Program. Funding in FY03 andFY04 has been appropriated for this program andsimilar funding levels are proposed for subsequentfiscal years.

In Minnesota, Map Modernization efforts funded todate are the digitizing of the FIRMs for the 45communities in Hennepin County, remapping of 3 CTPcounties, and mapping of six counties on the UpperMinnesota River supplementing hydraulic dataprepared by the USACE and funded by the MinnesotaDNR Waters and Section 22 funds obtained through theUSACE. FY04 funding has not been allocated at thistime.

with appropriate intervals. In the Red River valleycounties there is a need for one-foot contour interval orbetter base map to delineate the floodplain, but themajority of the state would require two-foot topographywith possibly some areas needing only four-foottopography. Since FEMA funds the collection ofdetailed topography in areas of detailed hydraulicanalysis, Minnesota expects FEMA to fund a portion ofthe DEM development.

3) The maps will represent accurate flood hazardinformation. All mapped Zone A areas will have atminimum a Limited Detailed analysis with anestimated Base Flood Elevation and if economicallyfeasible, a natural floodway.

4) Minnesota will become a Cooperating TechnicalPartner (CTP) State and will continue to encouragecounties to join the CTP program. Minnesota envisionsthe CTP program to involve counties on two levels,Tier one and Tier two. Tier one CTP counties will befull CTP partners with FEMA. Currently, six countiesin Minnesota have become CTP partners and othershave expressed interest. Tier two CTP counties do nothave the resources to be full CTP partners; MinnesotaDNR Waters will form a three-way partnership betweenthe county, the state, and FEMA in these counties. Thecounties will generally provide coordination of localcommunities, collection of data from local sourcesincluding surveying, and contracting for detailedanalyses. In addition to its overall CTP managementrole, the state will provide technical guidance, limiteddetailed analyses, and clearinghouse for the final maps.FEMA will provide funds for detailed analyses andmap preparation. Several rural counties have expressedinterest in participation at this level.

5) The Minnesota Flood Map Modernization Plan willmeet the sub-program element performance measuresin the Proposed National Milestones for MapModernization FY2004-2009. Funding has beencompleted for updating 8 of Minnesota’s 87 counties.Meeting these performance measure-ments assumesthat each year an additional fifteen counties willbecome part of the map modernization program for fiveyears with remaining four counties starting in the sixthyear. This plan includes cost estimates for completingthe county floodplain remapping.

2


Prioritization of counties for remapping the floodhazard maps is driven by cost efficiency whilemaintaining the objective for maps with accurate floodhazard information. Therefore, there is an emphasis onCTP counties or blocks of counties along majorwatercourses. The four priorities are listed belowfollowed by a discussion of the logic for the prioritiesand their implementation.

First Priority –Completion of existing

remapping projects

Second Priority –CTP counties

Third Priority –Major watercourses and

counties along them

Fourth Priority –Remapping repetitive

loss areas not in CTP program

Existing Projects - Existing Projects - Existing Projects - Existing Projects - Existing Projects - First PriorityFirst PriorityFirst PriorityFirst PriorityFirst Priority

In the late 1990s the Minnesota DNR Waters contractedwith the US Army Corps of Engineers to provide newhydrologic and hydraulic information for theMinnesota River from New Ulm to Big Stone Lake andfor most of the tributaries to the Minnesota River in thefive counties south of the river. The impetus for thiswas the need for better flood hazard data andtopographic, cross-sectional and hydrologic dataavailable from a Section 639 Area study the USACEand the NRCS had conducted. FEMA appropriatedFY2002 funds to complete hydrologic and hydraulicanalyses and remap ten counties in the area – fivecounties included the DNR Waters study and the fivecounties abutting the Minnesota River on the north.

PRIORITIES

The funds were adequate to complete the analysis forsix of the counties; Big Stone, Brown, LacQuiParle,Lyon, Swift, and Yellow Medicine. New preliminarymaps for these six counties should be completed in2004. Completing the remaining four counties,Chippewa, Nicollet, Renville, and Redwood, is a highpriority for Minnesota.

Prior to 2003, two Minnesota counties were in the CTPprogram, Clay and Washington. The work forcompleting the remapping of these counties has beenfunded; Washington County preliminary maps shouldbe completed in 2004 if problems with the logistics ofreview of the technical data can be resolved and ClayCounty preliminary maps should be completed in 2005.

CTP Counties - CTP Counties - CTP Counties - CTP Counties - CTP Counties - Second PrioritySecond PrioritySecond PrioritySecond PrioritySecond Priority

Minnesota plans to have two tiers of CTP counties asdiscussed earlier in the plan. Tier one CTP counties willbe full CTP partners with FEMA. Tier two CTPcounties will not have the resources to be full CTPpartners; Minnesota DNR Waters will form a three-waypartnership between the county, the state, and FEMA inthese counties.Four Minnesota counties have been added to the Tierone CTP program in 2003; Dakota, Goodhue, Scott,and Sherburne. Dakota County has a FY03 MappingActivity Statement addressing the first half of theactivities needed for remapping. The other threecounties have completed Mapping Needs Assessmentand could quickly prepare Mapping ActivityStatements in FY04. Other counties have expressedinterest in becoming CTPs. We anticipate that 2-3counties will become Tier one CTPs in each of the firstthree years of the Map Modernization plan. Weanticipate that 4-6 counties will become Tier two CTPSin each year of yeras 2-6 of the Map Modernizationplan.

This listing will change as more CTP counties areidentified. Table 1 lists by year the prioritized forremapping. New CTP counties each year could bumpcounties with lower priorities. The CTP counties offerservices and information that allow more cost effectivemap production. To reduce the costs for mapproduction the counties that are willing to contributeare rewarded by receiving higher priority forcompletion.

3


Minnesota DNR Waters sent a questionnaire to theCounty Zoning Administrators to determine whichcounties are interested in and capable of being CTPs.The information from the questionnaires will guide theCTP recruiting efforts.

Minnesota has many major watercourses, specificallythe Mississippi River, the Minnesota River, and the RedRiver. Recently, the hydrology and hydraulic analyseshave been updated for the Red River fromBreckenridge, Minnesota to the Canadian border, theMinnesota River from New Ulm to Big Stone Lake, theMinnesota River from St. Paul to Jordan, and theMississippi River from the Iowa border to Hastings,Minnesota. Updated data for the upper reaches of theMinnesota River was the impetuous to update tencounties in southwestern Minnesota. Using theupdated data to remap the Red River counties wouldhave been the next priority except that one-foottopography is necessary to delineate the floodplain inthe Red River. These counties will be a third prioritywhen adequate topography is available. The data forthe Minnesota River from St. Paul to Jordan will beused in remapping two of the current CTP counties.The lower Mississippi River floodway analysis will beavailable this summer. Floodway discussions with thecounties will occur this spring, and we will determinetheir interest in the CTP program. Again, the data willbe used in remapping of two CTP counties.

Minnesota’s big concern on major watercourses is theMississippi River from St. Paul to Bemidji. Longreaches of the Mississippi River do not have computedBFEs, and the most of the detailed analyses haven’tbeen updated since the 1970s. This area of the state hasmajor development pressure and the communities areexpanding. They need to have accurate, detailedfloodplain maps in areas currently unmapped ormapped with approximate methods. We feel thathaving the whole reach studied at one time would becost effective. We request FY2004 funding for thiseffort. With this analysis complete, it will be easier tomap abutting counties in the following years.

Major Watercourses -Major Watercourses -Major Watercourses -Major Watercourses -Major Watercourses -Third PriorityThird PriorityThird PriorityThird PriorityThird Priority

Repetitive Loss Areas not inRepetitive Loss Areas not inRepetitive Loss Areas not inRepetitive Loss Areas not inRepetitive Loss Areas not inCTP Program - CTP Program - CTP Program - CTP Program - CTP Program - Fourth PriorityFourth PriorityFourth PriorityFourth PriorityFourth Priority

Minnesota DNR Waters reviews FEMA’s RepetitiveLoss information for the state of Minnesota inmitigation efforts. The October 31, 2003 FEMArepetitive loss report indicates that the top eightrepetitive loss counties are either CTP counties or havemajor mitigation projects completed or nearlycompleted. The remaining counties have fewer thanten repetitive losses reported. The FEMA repetitiveloss information will be used to prioritize among theremaining counties after the first three priorities havebeen satisfied.

4


MA

NA

GE

ME

NT O

F M

INN

ES

OTA

MA

P

MO

DE

RN

IZA

TIO

N P

RO

GR

AM

Min

neso

ta D

NR

Wat

ers

is th

e N

atio

nal F

lood

Ins

uran

ce P

rogr

am C

oord

inat

ing

agen

cy f

or F

EM

A. T

hey

will

be

the

lead

in M

inne

sota

’s C

TP

prog

ram

. The

NFI

P C

oord

inat

or, O

gbaz

ghi S

ium

, will

be

the

team

man

ager

. Im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e co

unty

rem

appi

ng w

ill b

e le

d by

the

Min

neso

ta S

tate

Flo

odpl

ain

Map

ping

Eng

inee

r, Su

zann

e Ji

wan

i, an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of a

dopt

ion

of th

e ne

w m

aps

by th

e co

mm

uniti

es w

illbe

led

by th

e St

ate

Floo

dpla

in O

rdin

ance

Hyd

rolo

gist

, Tom

Lut

gen.

Coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith r

esou

rces

fro

m M

inne

sota

and

Fed

eral

Age

ncie

s,FE

MA

Reg

ion

V, a

nd C

ount

y Z

onin

g A

dmin

istr

ator

s w

ill b

e ta

sked

to th

is te

am.

As

a C

TP

Stat

e, F

EM

A a

nd M

inne

sota

will

sha

re th

e fi

nanc

ial r

espo

nsib

ility

for

fun

ding

the

posi

tions

nee

ded

to f

ulfi

ll th

e M

ap M

oder

niza

-tio

n Pl

an. M

inne

sota

req

uest

s th

e fu

ndin

g of

2.5

FT

E p

ositi

ons

to im

plem

ent t

he p

lan.

Tw

o of

the

posi

tions

will

be

DN

R W

ater

s, th

e St

ate

Floo

dpla

n M

appi

ng E

ngin

eer

and

the

Hyd

raul

ic E

ngin

eer.

To s

uppo

rt th

e w

ork

in e

stab

lishi

ng a

nd p

rovi

ding

a w

ebsi

te c

lear

ingh

ouse

for

FEM

A’s

flo

odpl

ain

map

s an

d el

ectr

onic

con

nect

ions

to th

e co

untie

s fo

r th

e un

derl

ying

dat

a, M

inne

sota

req

uest

s fu

ndin

g of

a 0

.5 F

TE

GIS

posi

tion.

In

addi

tion,

Min

neso

ta r

eque

sts

fund

ing

for

soft

war

e lic

ense

s ne

eded

for

ful

filli

ng th

e pr

ogra

m a

nd a

ser

ver

for

the

FEM

A d

ata.

Cos

t est

imat

es f

or th

ese

expe

nditu

res

are

show

n in

App

endi

x A

.

Min

nes

ota

Flo

op

lain

Map

Mo

der

niz

atio

n T

eam

Ogb

azgh

i Siu

mM

inne

sota

NF

IP C

oord

inat

or

Res

ourc

es fr

om F

eder

al A

genc

ies

US

AC

EN

RC

SU

SG

S

Res

ourc

es fr

om o

ther

Sta

te A

genc

ies

MnD

OT

BW

SR

Suz

anne

Jiw

ani

Flo

odpl

ain

Map

ping

Eng

inee

rLe

e T

raeg

erF

EM

A R

egio

n V

Eng

inee

rTo

m L

utge

nF

lood

plai

n O

rdin

ance

s

Eng

inee

r an

d M

appi

ng C

ontr

acto

rsH

ydra

ulic

Eng

inee

rD

NR

Lak

eshe

d Te

amG

IS S

taff

Min

neso

ta D

NR

Cou

nty

Zon

ing

Adm

inis

trat

ors

DN

R A

rea

Hyd

rolo

gist

s

City

and

Cou

nty

Zon

ing

Adm

inis

trat

ors

5


The State will perform, through the State mappingEngineer (SME), and/or manage the mapping activitiesin the State. The specific activities that the State ofMinnesota will perform or manage are: • promote, coordinate, provide technical guidance and review of the Cooperating Technical Partners; • support FEMA scoping activities; • review maps and liason to counties for FEMA; • perform hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for approximate study areas; • review hydrology reports through the Interagency Hydrology Review Committee; • establish website clearinghouse for floodplain maps: • provide internet access to counties of data behind FEMA’s floodplain maps: and • promote and manage the proposed statewide digital elevation model (DEM) and floodplain mapping program

FEMA will provide the State with appropriate funds,including funding for a SME and an HydraulicEngineer, to perform specific mapping activities; thesefunds will be subject to a 20 percent soft matchrequirement, including in-kind services, from the stateand CTP communities. The nature and scope of theactivities will be detailed in the CTP partnershipagreements, and will be based on the results of thestatewide mapping needs assessments.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources WatersDivision (DNR Waters) will take the lead for the statefloodplain mapping program. DNR ManagementInformation Services Bureau will install and maintainlinks to the completed floodplain maps from the DNRwebsite. Currently, DNR Waters is leading a coalitionof over 18 organizations to obtain funding for astatewide DEM program with projected costs of $40million. Several federal, state, county, township, cityand professional organizations are part of the coalition.

STATE ROLE IN THE FLOOD

HAZARD MAPPING PROGRAM

ESTIMATED COSTS TOCOMPLETE PROPOSEDMAPPING ACTIVITIES

The costs to complete the proposed floodplainremapping activities used the data from the 2002mapping needs assessment and unit costs from FEMA’sBlue Book. A description of the methods used todevelop the 2002 mapping needs assessment follows.The cost calculations are in Appendix A. A summaryof the costs by county for FY04 is given in Table 2.

Description 2002 Mapping NeedsDescription 2002 Mapping NeedsDescription 2002 Mapping NeedsDescription 2002 Mapping NeedsDescription 2002 Mapping NeedsAssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

6

DNR Waters performed a mapping needs assessment in2002 to fully evaluate the mapping needs in Minnesota.This mapping needs assessment was described inAugust 2002 Map Modernization Plan of State ofMinnesota that was submitted to FEMA. This mappingneeds assessment was undertaken in cooperation withFEMA and FEMA’s Flood Map ProductionCoordination Contractor (MCC). DNR Watersredeployed an engineer since March, a GIS specialist,and a hydrologist since May to collect the followingdata on a county-by-county basis:

• Age of the existing maps;

• Status of existing maps (digital, manual, none);

• Existing or potential local mapping partners;

• Number of unmapped, floodprone communities;

• Number of communities;

• Availability of existing base map, topographic data, and/or flood hazard data.

• Letters of Map Change processed during the last 10 years;

• Population and population growth (U.S. Census and/or State-developed figures);


• Flood insurance policies and repetitive losses;

• Availability of State and/or local funding;

• Format of existing maps (countywide or community-based format); and

• Ongoing map updates, including updates being undertaken by regional agencies or communities under the Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Program.

• Number of perennial stream miles, mapped and unmapped, and mapped intermittent streams for each panel in each county

• Arcview shape files for FEMA Q3 and map panel data, and streams from USGS 1:24000 quad rangles

DNR Waters undertook additional data collection andoutreach activities to supplement the MNUSS data,

other data provided by FEMA, and data available invarious State agency offices. A compilation was madeby county for each FEMA flood map panel of thenumber of mapped river miles and the number ofunmapped perennial stream miles. The data was used toestimate costs for the hydraulic analyses for a DEMfloodplain mapping model and cost estimates for thisproposal.

DNR Waters contacted counties through its network of28 on-site area hydrologists. These hydrologistssupplied information on floodplain mapping needsbased on their first hand knowledge of the local com-munities and associated floodplain issues.

Data was collected for each county identifying all citiesin the county and the following information for eachcommunity: the FEMA Community ID number, statusof non-unrolled communities, DNR Waters areahydrologist, date of current effective map, populationchange from the latest census, and the areahydrologist’s priority ranking in floodplain issues.

7


8

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proposes to develop and maintain a floodplain dataaccess capability to enhance the availability and usability of these information resources for federal, state, andlocal government cooperators. This would be accomplished through the development of specific softwareapplications and technology capabilities conforming to common industry standards.

Proposed Applications

Minnesota DNR proposes that the following five software applications be developed under the grant-fundingagreement:

Application Name Application Description Application Assumptions Application Outcomes

DNR GIS-MAPPING SUPPORT

FIRM MapProduct

Distribution

A web-based application featuring aninteractive map-index to available FIRMpanels. When the user clicks on a panel,the map is displayed in a separatewindow.

A separate contractor will prepare thepublished electronic maps and deliver them toDNR in a consistent, standardized format.DNR will maintain the application as newmaps become available. Contractor willprovide updated master FIRM panel map indexas needed.

Provides easy access to FIRMmap products to citizens,government cooperators, andprivate companies seekingfloodplain maps.

FloodplainData Download

Integration of FEMA floodplaindelineation data into DNR’s existing datadownload application. Data will bedistributed in ESRI shapefile format.

Floodplain delineation data are delivered toDNR from outside contractor in highlystandardized and consistent formats.Contractor will provide updated master FIRMpanel map index as needed.

GIS-ready FEMA floodplaindelineation data will be madeavailable to citizens,government cooperators,educators and private companiesseeking to conduct spatialanalysis in a wide variety ofapplication areas.

InteractiveFloodplainMapping

A publicly-available web-basedapplication that allows users tointeractively view floodplain delineationsin conjunction with a variety of spatialreference data, including aerialphotography and scanned map products.

Floodplain data are delivered to DNR fromoutside contractor in highly standardized andconsistent formats. Contractor will provideupdated master FIRM panel map index asneeded.

Allows anyone to quicklynavigate to a location inMinnesota and identify thefloodplain delineationsassociated with a site.

Floodplain DataStreaming

A technological capability that wouldallow government and business partnersto directly incorporate floodplain datathrough Web Mapping Services (WMS)or ArcIMS vector streaming to Arc8/9 orArcIMS clients.

Floodplain data are delivered to DNR fromoutside contractor in highly standardized andconsistent formats. Contractor will provideupdated master FIRM panel map index asneeded. Also assumes that government andbusiness partners have independently acquiredand/or developed the client capabilities toaccess the services described.

Provides direct access to themost current floodplaindelineations without downloadand subsequent processing.Partners have the option directlyincorporating these data sourcesinto their business applications.

HydrologicAnalysisModelHosting

A quick data file download capability fortechnical partners seeking HydrologicModels used to develop floodplaindelineations. This application will nothave a mapping interface.

A file naming convention will be developedthat will serve as the basis for site users toidentify and acquire data from the site.

Provides access to hydrologicmodels to government andprivate sector hydrologists.

Developing the software applications and technical capabilities described above will require expenditures in twocost categories: 1) software development and maintenance, and 2) computing facilities. The cost proposal, shownin Appendix A, is broken out into separate subsections related to these categories.


FEMA Region V sent Minnesota DNR Waters theMulti-Hazard Flood Map Modernization ProposedNational Milestones, FY2004-2009 Sub-ProgramElement Performance Measures. In addition, theRegion suggested phasing the work with fifteenadditional counties added each year. Minnesota DNRWaters developed a prioritization for work in thecounties that adheres to FEMA Region V’s guidanceand performance measures. This prioritization plan issubject to change with the addition of CTP tier one andtier two counties. Table 3 lists for each county it’spopulation and the work plan by year: map productionbegins, map production completion, and map adoption.

There are four sub-program element performancemeasures:

1) Measure one is percentage of population that hasdigital GIS flood hazard data available on-line. Theadherence of the Minnesota plan to this performancemeasure is shown on Figure 1. The Minnesota planmeets this performance measure in all six years.

2) Measure two is percentage of population that hasadopted modernized GIS flood maps. The adherenceof the Minnesota plan to this performance measure isshown on Figure 2. The Minnesota plan meets thisperformance measure in all six years.

3) Measure three is leveraged effort toward digitalGIS flood hazard data. FEMA requires a twenty percentleverage for appropriated funding. Minnesota meetsthis performance measure in FY04. Additional CTPefforts are needed to meet future years.

4) Measure four is percentage of Map Modernizationfunding put through to CTPs. If Minnesota becomes aCTP state this performance measure will be met for allsix years of the plan. The Minnesota plan meets thisperformance measure for the first three years with thecounty CTP effort.

A comparison of the Minnesota plan and FEMA’ssub-program element measurement goals is shownon Table 4.

9

The effect of the implementation of the Minnesota planis shown on Figures 3-8. These figures show thecounties that have started map production, havecompleted maps, and have adopted the completed mapsinto their floodplain ordinance for each year of theplan.

Cost estimates for implementing Minneosta’s plan areshown in Appendix A. The costs are estimated by yearprioritizing the counties in each year. For example, in2004 the first five counties listed are existing projects(Redwood, Renville, Nicollet, Chippewa, andHennepin), the next four counties are CTP counties(Dakota, Scott, Goodhue, Sherburne), the next item ishydrology and hydraulics for the Upper MississippiRiver, and the remaining counties are potential CTPpartners. The costs for each county are divided intofive categories: topography, outreach, hydrology andhydraulics, internet access to maps, and mapproduction. The costs for two categories, outreach andinternet access to maps are assumed to be born by theCTP. The costs for the other three categories are splitbetween the CTP and FEMA. The total estimated costsfor FEMA and for the CTPs are given.

In the event that FEMA cannot allocate the estimatedcosts for a specific year, Minnesota recommends thatfunding be allocated from the top of the list for aspecific year. The Minnesota plan will be adjusted byreprioritizing counties in future years. Thereprioritization will use the four Minnesota priorities:completing existing remapping projects, CTP counties,major watercourses, and remapping repetitive areas notin CTP counties. The listing of counties in Table 3limits the number of new CTP counties in a year,assuming 2-3 tier one CTP counties and 4-6 tier twoCTP counties in each year. Therefore, reprioritizingsubsequent years doesn’t necessarily place the lastcounties in Year One at the top of the Year Two list.Meeting FEMA’s sub-element performance measureswill be a goal in the reprioritization.

PLAN’S ADHERENCE TO FEMA’s PERFORMANCE MEASURES


County 2000 Pop County 2000 Pop County 2000 Pop

Big Stone 5820Brown 26911Clay 51229Lac qui Parle 8067Lyon 25425Swift 11956Washington 201130Yellow Medicine 11080Population with data 341618% pop with data 6.94%

Chippewa 13088 Big Stone 5820 Hennepin 1116200Chisago 41101 Brown 26911 Lac qui Parle 8067Dakota 355904 Chippewa 13088 Lyon 25425Goodhue 44127 Hennepin 1116200 Yellow Medicine 11080Hennepin 1116200 Lac qui Parle 8067 Population map adopted 1160772Isanti 31287 Lyon 25425 % pop with map adopted 23.60%Meeker 22644 Nicollet 29771McLeod 34898 Redwood 16815Nicollet 29771 Renville 17154Ramsey 511035 Swift 11956Redwood 16815 Washington 201130Renville 17154 Yellow Medicine 11080Saint Louis 200528 Population map done 1483417Scott 89498 % pop with map done 30.15%Sherburne 64417Upper Mississippi RiverPopulation with data 2588467

% pop with data 59.56%

Aitkin 15301 Chisago 41101 Big Stone 5820Benton 34226 Dakota 355904 Brown 26911Blue Earth 55941 Goodhue 44127 Chippewa 13088Carver 70205 McLeod 34898 Nicollet 29771Cass 27150 Meeker 22644 Redwood 16815Crow Wing 55099 Ramsey 511035 Renville 17154Houston 19718 Scott 89498 Swift 11956Itasca 43992 Sherburne 64417 Washington 201130Kandiyohi 41203 Population map done 1163624 Population map adopted 322645Lincoln 6429 % pop with map done 53.81% % pop with map adopted 30.15%Morrison 31712Pine 26530Stearns 133166Todd 24426Wright 89986Population with data 675084


Map production Map Completion Map Adoption

2003 2003 2003

2004 2004 2004

2005 2005 2005

Table 3. DETAIL BY COUNTY OF YEARLY MAP PRODUCTION,

COMPLETION & ADOPTION

1 0

20032003 2003

2004 2004 2004

20052005 2005


Anoka 298084 Aitkin 15301 Chisago 41101Beltrami 39650 Benton 34226 Dakota 355904Jackson 11268 Blue Earth 55941 Goodhue 44127LeSueur 25426 Carver 70205 McLeod 34898Mahnomen 5190 Clay 51229 Meeker 22644Mower 38603 Crow Wing 55099 Ramsey 511035Nobles 20832 Houston 19718 Scott 89498Olmsted 124277 Isanti 31287 Sherburne 64417Pipestone 9895 Lincoln 6429 Population map adopted 1163624Rice 56665 Morrison 31712 % pop with map adopted 53.81%Roseau 16338 Saint Louis 200528Wabasha 21610 Todd 24426Wadena 13713 Population map done 596101Wilkin 7138 % pop with map done 65.92%Winona 49985Population with data 738674


Clearwater 8423 Cass 27150 Aitkin 15301Dodge 17731 Itasca 43992 Benton 34226Fillmore 21122 Jackson 11268 Blue Earth 55941Freeborn 32584 Kandiyohi 41203 Carver 70205Hubbard 18376 LeSueur 25426 Clay 51229Kanabec 14996 Mahnomen 5190 Crow Wing 55099Kittson 5285 Nobles 20832 Houston 19718Marshall 10155 Pine 26530 Isanti 31287Mille Lacs 22330 Pipestone 9895 Lincoln 6429Norman 7442 Roseau 16338 Morrison 31712Ottertail 57159 Stearns 133166 Saint Louis 200528Polk 31369 Wabasha 21610 Todd 24426Sibley 15356 Wadena 13713 Population map adopted 596101Steele 33680 Winona 49985 % pop with map adopted 65.92%Traverse 4134 Wright 89986Remaining Minnesota River Population map done 536284Population with data 300142 % pop with map done 76.83%


Carlton 31671 Anoka 298084 Cass 27150Cottonwood 12167 Clearwater 8423 Itasca 43992Douglas 32821 Dodge 17731 Jackson 11268Faribault 16181 Fillmore 21122 Kandiyohi 41203Grant 6289 Freeborn 32584 LeSueur 25426Koochiching 14355 Hubbard 18376 Mahnomen 5190Lake of the Woods 4522 Kanabec 14996 Nobles 20832Martin 21802 Kittson 5285 Pine 26530

Murray 9165 Marshall 10155 Pipestone 9895

2006 2006 2006

2007 2007 2007

2008 2008 2008

1 1

2008 20082008

2006 2006 2006

2007 2007 2007


y p

Pennington 13584 Mille Lacs 22330 Roseau 16338Pope 11236 Mower 38603 Stearns 133166Red Lake 4299 Norman 7442 Wabasha 21610Rock 9721 Olmsted 124277 Wadena 13713Stevens 10053 Polk 31369 Winona 49985Watonwan 11876 Rice 56665 Wright 89986Population with data 209742 Rock 9721 Population map adopted 536284% pop with data 98.66% Sibley 15356 % pop with map adopted 76.83%

Steele 33680Traverse 4134Wilkin 7138Population map done 777471

% pop with map done 92.63%

Becker 30000 Becker 30000 Anoka 298084Cook 5168 Beltrami 39650 Clearwater 8423Lake 11058 Carlton 31671 Dodge 17731Waseca 19526 Cook 5168 Fillmore 21122

Cottonwood 12167 Freeborn 32584Population with data 65752 Douglas 32821 Hubbard 18376% pop with data 100.00% Faribault 16181 Kanabec 14996

Grant 6289 Kittson 5285Koochiching 14355 Marshall 10155Lake 11058 Mille Lacs 22330Lake of the Woods 4522 Mower 38603Martin 21802 Norman 7442Murray 9165 Olmsted 124277Ottertail 57159 Polk 31369Pennington 13584 Rice 56665Pope 11236 Rock 9721Red Lake 4299 Sibley 15356Stevens 10053 Steele 33680Waseca 19526 Traverse 4134Watonwan 11876 Wilkin 7138Population map done 362582 Population map adopted 777471% pop with map done 100.00% % pop with map adopted 92.63%

2000 MN Population = 4,919,479

2009 20092009

2008 (continued) 2008 (continued) 2008 (continued)

1 2

2009 2009 2009

2008 (continued) 2008 (continued) 2008 (continued)


Year FEMA Targets

Minnesota Plan

FEMA Targets

Minnesota Plan

2004 20% 30% 10% 24%2005 50% 54% 20% 30%2006 65% 66% 35% 54%2007 75% 77% 50% 66%2008 85% 93% 70% 77%2009 100% 100% 90% 93%

% of Population Map Adopted

% of Population Mapped

Table 4 - YEARLY SUMMARY OF PERCENTAGE OF MINNESOTA POPULATION

WITH GIS FLOOD HAZARD MAPS & Flood Hazard MAPS ADOPTED

1 3


Figure 1. PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH

DIGITAL GIS FLOOD HAZARD MAPS

Figure 2. PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH

ADOPTED GIS FLOOD MAPS

1 4

Adopted GIS Flood Maps

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FEMA TargetsMinnesota Plan

Digital GIS Flood Hazard Maps

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FEMA TargetsMinnesota Plan


2 1

Appendix A

COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPLEMENTING MINNESOTA’S FLOODPLAIN

MAP MODERNIZATION PLAN

The cost estimates for implementing Minnesota’sFloodplain Map Modernization Plan are shown inthis appendix. Table A1: Remapping Costs showsthe work plan for each year and lists the countiesfor that year and the costs implementing the plan.The counties are listed according to priority withina year, with the highest priority projects first. Thecosts for each county are divided into fivecategories: topography, outreach, hydrology andhydraulics, internet access to maps, and mapproduction. The costs for two categories, outreachand internet access to maps are assumed to be bornby the CTP. The costs for the other threecategories are split between the CTP and FEMA.The total estimated costs for FEMA and for theCTPs are given.

Existing CTP counties have completed mappingneeds assessments; this increases the accuracy ofthe hydrology and hydraulics cost estimates inTable A1. Cost estimates for non-CTP countiesuse data from the 2002 Map Modernization Planfor State of Minnesota.

Included in the cost estimates for each year isfunding from FEMA to the Minnesota DNR forcoordination and management of the State CTP.Minnesota’s match for this funding is shown initem Outreach CTP. Details for the funding to thestate follow in this Appendix.

ExpensesAreaHydrologists

HydraulicEngineer

FloodplainOrdinance

Hydrologist

NFIPCoordinator

FloodplainMap Engineer

ProgramManagement

CTPCoordination

CommunityOutreach

H&H Analysis

TotalAnnual Cost

OrdinationAdoption

Activities

$15,000

$15,000

$100,000 $50,000 $80,000 $60,000 $20,000

$50,000

$80,000 $12,000$35,000

$20,000$15,000

$40,000

$50,000

$4,000

$4,000

CTP Coordination and Management Annual Costs


FIRM Map ProductDistribution

GIS-Mapping Support for Minnesota DNR FEMA Proposal Costs

Developing the software applications and technical capabilities described above will require expenditures in twocost categories: 1) software development and maintenance, and 2) computing facilities. This cost proposal isbroken out into separate subsections related to these categories.

Cost Category 1: Software Development and Maintenance

All labor costs reflect burdened rates at the State of Minnesota Information Technology Specialist 3-GIST optionwith salary escalation ($120/hour).

Maintenance costs over five years: $51,500

Total Costs for Initial Software Development andFive Years Software Product Maintenance:

Application Name InitialDevelopment

Person-Hours

InitialDevelopment

BurdenedCosts

On-GoingSupportPerson-Hours

(Annual)

On-GoingSupport

BurdenedCosts

(Annual)

Floodplain dataDownload

Interactive FloodplainMapping

Floodplain DataStreaming

Hydrologic AnalysisModel Hosting

40

$10,30085210

$4,800

10

$4,800

20

5

20

$1,200

$14,400

$2,400

$2,400

120

20

$25,200

$1,200

$1,200

$700

$2,400

10

40

10

TOTALS

$76,700

2 2


Initial cost: $44,000Maintenance costs over four years (first year free): $22,000

Total Costs for Computing Facilities: $66,000

Cost Category 2: Computing Facilities

ComputingComponent Name Initial Cost

Product LicenseMaintenance

(per year)Comments

ArcSDE 8.X $10,000

ArcIMS

HP ProLiant DL380Server, Linux OS

$3,000 Support high-speed simultaneousdata serving to multiple clients, plusfacilitates data maintenanceprocesses with productioncontractors

$12,500 $2,500 Supports vector data streaming tobusiness partners and map mappingapplications

$16,000 N/A Host ArcSDE and ArcIMS services.

TOTALS $38,500 $5,500

Total Costs for all categories

Five Yearsof Maintenance

and AdministrationInitial Cost

Cost by ComputingCategory

ComputingComponent Category

SoftwareDevelopment andMaintenance

$25,200 $51,500 $76,700

Computing Facilities $44,000 $22,000 $66,000

$62,900 $28,650

TOTAL: $142,700

2 3


2 4

Table A1: Remapping CostsCounties listed by Priority within Year

FY04 Costs in thousands of $Outreach ITS

Funding Source Number Funding Source CTP FEMA TotalCounty CTP FEMA CTP CTP FEMA CTP of Panels CTP FEMACTP funding to DNR 125 250 125 250 375Redwood 10 100 14 80 272 14 382 396Renville 10 20 17 95 323 17 353 370Nicollet 10 30 10 54 184 10 224 233Chippewa 30 230 11 61 207 11 467 478Hennepin 36 198 297 36 297 333Dakota 40 150 220 11 59 201 401 220 621Scott 250 35 300 10 56 190 295 490 785Goodhue 600 40 450 14 79 269 654 719 1,373Sherburne 300 35 200 8 43 146 343 346 689Upper Mississippi River 450 1500 0 0 1950 1,950Ramsey 200 35 50 50 9 49 167 294 217 510St. Louis 200 40 70 600 90 500 1700 200 2500 2,700Chisago 30 60 35 30 220 8 47 160 103 440 543Isanti 30 20 20 9 50 59 20 79Mcleod 70 20 150 8 44 150 28 370 398Meeker 35 50 150 10 58 197 60 382 443Total Cost 12,277CTP Total Cost 1380 415 390 265 201 2651FEMA Total Cost 875 4490 4261 9626

Topographic Hydrology and Map Production Total County CostsFunding Source

Table A1: Remapping Costs (continued)Counties listed by Priority within Year


Funding Source Number Funding Source CTP FEMA TotalCounty CTP FEMA CTP CTP FEMA CTP of Panels CTP FEMACTP funding to DNR 125 250 125 250 375Carver 40 40 10 120 8 46 156 58 316 375Stearns* 70 40 30 250 21 119 405 91 725 816Benton* 60 25 200 7 40 136 32 396 428Blue Earth 60 75 225 13 70 238 88 523 611Crow Wing* 100 10 19 104 354 119 364 482Lincoln 20 10 8 42 143 28 153 180Pine 160 25 300 21 116 394 46 854 900Todd 40 25 100 14 80 272 39 412 451Houston 75 5 30 102 5 177 182Aitkin* 100 23 126 428 23 528 551Morrison* 80 200 20 112 381 20 661 681Wright* 70 75 325 12 69 235 87 630 717Cass* 50 70 32 178 605 82 675 757Itasca* 75 100 28 156 530 103 630 733Kandiyohi 10 50 50 13 72 245 63 305 368Total Cost 8,609CTP Total Cost 205 560 245 1,010FEMA Total Cost 590 2385 4624 7599

* cost assumes that Upper Mississippi River study completed



2 5



Funding Source Number Funding Source CTP FEMA TotalCounty CTP FEMA CTP CTP FEMA CTP of Panels CTP FEMACTP funding to DNR 125 250 125 250 375Anoka* 120 150 700 14 80 272 164 1092 1,256Olmsted 100 25 125 11 63 214 36 439 476Rice 80 50 250 9 52 177 59 507 566Nobles 25 25 11 60 204 36 229 265Roseau 180 150 50 23 129 439 353 489 842Jackson 200 12 66 224 12 424 436Pipestone 100 7 37 126 7 226 232Mower 150 11 62 211 11 361 372LeSueur 30 200 9 48 163 39 363 402Beltrami* 50 50 41 226 768 91 818 909Winona 50 11 59 201 11 251 261Wabasha 100 9 51 173 9 273 283Wadena 25 50 9 49 167 34 217 250Mahnomen 25 75 9 48 163 34 238 272Wilkin 100 12 68 231 12 331 343Total Cost 7,541CTP Total Cost 180 125 530 198 1033FEMA Total Cost 300 2475 3733 6508

* cost assumes that Upper Mississippi River study completed




Funding Source Number Funding Source CTP FEMA TotalCounty CTP FEMA CTP CTP FEMA CTP of Panels CTP FEMACTP funding to DNR 125 250 125 250 375Marshall 60 75 75 27 148 503 102 638 740Polk 60 150 31 170 578 31 788 819Kittson 60 150 19 105 357 19 567 586Norman 60 40 100 11 59 201 51 361 411Traverse 15 50 13 72 245 28 295 323Fillmore 75 12 64 218 12 293 304Freeborn 75 14 78 265 14 340 354Hubbard 20 100 15 81 275 15 395 410Clearwater 25 50 6 36 122 31 172 204Dodge 100 10 54 184 10 284 293MilleLacs 25 150 10 54 184 35 334 368Ottertail 100 200 35 196 666 135 866 1,002Remaining Minnesota River 400 0 0 0 400 400Sibley* 10 54 184 10 184 193Steele 75 8 42 143 8 218 225Kanabec 100 9 49 167 9 267 275Total Cost 6,908CTP Total Cost 0 125 280 227 632FEMA Total Cost 260 1850 3788 5898

* cost assumes Minnesota River analysis completed



2 6



Funding Source Number Funding Source CTP FEMA TotalCounty CTP FEMA CTP CTP FEMA CTP of Panels CTP FEMACTP funding to DNR 125 250 125 250 375Douglas 20 100 11 63 214 31 314 346Pope 20 100 11 60 204 31 304 335Carlton 75 14 80 272 14 347 361Martin 75 11 63 214 11 289 301Faribault 75 11 60 204 11 279 290Koochiching 50 150 24 133 452 74 602 676Pennington 25 11 60 204 11 229 240Cottonwood 75 11 62 211 11 286 297Watonwan 50 7 40 136 7 186 193Stevens 75 9 48 163 9 238 247Grant 75 9 48 163 9 238 247Rock 25 50 8 42 143 33 193 225Murray 30 50 11 60 204 41 254 295Lake of the Woods 50 50 16 89 303 66 353 419Red Lake 25 25 9 48 163 34 188 222Total Cost 5,067CTP Total Cost 0 125 220 172 517FEMA Total Cost 0 1300 3250 4550

FY09CTP funding to DNR 125 250 125 250 375Waseca 50 8 42 143 8 193 200Becker 50 50 22 121 411 72 461 533Cook 50 18 100 340 68 340 408Lake 50 22 124 422 72 422 494Total Cost 2,010CTP Total Cost 125 150 275FEMA Total Cost 0 350 70 1316 1735

Funding SourceTopographic Hydrology and Map Production Total County Costs

minnesota map modernization business plan - floods · minnesota map modernization plan for updating...

Documents