National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 7 Mapping and Risk Communication: Moving to the Future
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2009. Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood Map Accuracy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12573.
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2009. Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood Map Accuracy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12573.
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2009. Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood Map Accuracy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12573.
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2009. Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood Map Accuracy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12573.
Page 104

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

References Ajami, N.K., Q.Y. Duan, and S. Sorooshian, 2007, An integrated Census Bureau, 2005, Table A1: Interim projection of the total hydrologic Bayesian multimodel combination framework: Con- population of the United States and states: April 1, 2000 to fronting input, parameter, and model structural uncertainty in July 1, 2030, Population Division, Interim State Population hydrologic prediction, Water Resources Research, 43, W01403, Projections; available online at <­ doi: 10.1029/2005WR004745. population/projections/SummaryTabA1.pdf>. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), 2005a, Minimum Chivers, J., and N.E. Flores, 2002, Market failure in information: Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI The National Flood Insurance Program, Land Economics, 78, Standard 7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 515-521. Va., available on CD-ROM. Divoky, D., and D.T. Resio, 2008, Performance of the JPM ASCE, 2005b, Flood Resistant Design and Construction, ASCE and EST methods in storm surge studies, 13 pp.; available Standard 24-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, online at <­ Va., 80 pp. divokyResioJPMESTpaperFinal.pdf>. Bernknopf, R.L., R. Campbell, and C. Shapiro, 1988, An economic Dixon, L., N. Clancy, S.A. Seabury, and A. Overton, 2006, The and geographic appraisal of a spatial natural hazard risk: A study National Flood Insurance Program’s Market Penetration Rate: of landslide mitigation rules, Environment and Planning A, 20, Estimates and Policy Implications, RAND Corporation, Santa 621-631. Monica, Calif., 116 pp.; available online at <http://www.fema. Bernknopf, R.L., D.S. Brookshire, and M. Thayer, 1990, Earth- gov/library/>. quake and volcano notices: An economic evaluation of changes Downton, M.W., J.Z. Barnard Miller, and R.A. Pielke Jr., 2005, in risk perception, Journal of Environmental Economics and Reanalysis of U.S. National Weather Service flood loss database, Management, 18, 35-49. Natural Hazards Review, February, 13-22. Bernknopf, R.L., D.S. Brookshire, D.R. Soller, M.J. McKee, J.F. Einstein, H.H., 1988, Landslide risk assessment procedure, in Sutter, J.C. Matti, and R.H. Campbell, 1993, Societal Value of Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Landslides, Geologic Maps, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1111, Denver, Lausanne, Switzerland, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1075- Colo., 53 pp. 1090. Bernknopf, R.L., D.S. Brookshire, M. McKee, and D.R. Soller, EQE International, 2000, HAZUS Preview Model Methods and 1997, Estimating the social value of geologic map information: Data—Final Technical Report, Report to the National Institute A regulatory application, Journal of Environmental Economics and of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., 200 pp. Management, 32, 204-218. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), 1983, Flood Bin, O., and S. Polasky, 2004, Effects of flood hazards on property Insurance Study: Guidelines and Specifications for Study Contractors, values. Evidence before and after Hurricane Floyd, Land Eco- FEMA 37; available online at < nomics, 80, 490-500. frm_gstc02.pdf>. Büchele, B., H. Kreibich, A. Kron, A. Thieken, J. Ihringer, P. FEMA, 1989, Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Providing Tech­ Oberle, B. Merz, and F. Nestmann, 2006, Flood-risk mapping: nical Assistance to and Monitoring Compliance by NFIP Partici- Contributions towards an enhanced assessment of extreme pating Communities: Working Draft, 39 pp. events and associated risks, Natural Hazards and Earth System FEMA, 1995, Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Sciences, 6, 485-503. Zone A Areas: A Guide for Obtaining and Developing Base CDWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2005, Multi- (100-Year) Flood Elevations, FEMA 265; available online at objective Approaches to Floodplain Management on a Watershed <>. Basis: Natural Floodplain Functions and Societal Values; available FEMA, 1997, Modernizing FEMA’s Flood Hazard Mapping Pro- online at < gram: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs, 42 pp. EPA/Floodplain%20Functions%20Values_May%2005.doc>. 101

102 MAPPING THE ZONE FEMA, 2000, Modernizing FEMA’s Flood Hazard Mapping Galloway, G.E., G.B. Baecher, D. Plasencia, K.G. Coulton, ­ rogram: An Updated Assessment of the Benefits and Costs, FEMA P J. ­ Louthain, M. Bagha, and A.R. Levy, 2006, Assessing the internal document, 7 pp. A ­ dequacy of the National Flood Insurance Program’s 1 Percent Flood FEMA, 2001, What Is a Benefit? Guidance on Benefit-Cost Analysis Standard, Water Policy Collaborative, University of Maryland, of Hazard Mitigation Projects, Revision 2.0, Flood Insurance and College Park, 197 pp. Mitigation Administration, Washington, D.C., 82 pp. GAO (Government Accountability Office), 2004, Flood Map FEMA, 2002, National Flood Insurance Program: Program Modernization: Program Strategy Shows Promise, but Challenges d ­ escription; available online at < Remain, GAO-04-417, Washington, D.C., 49 pp. prevent/floodplain/nfipdescrip.doc>. Gesch, D.B., 2009, Analysis of lidar elevation data for improved FEMA, 2003, Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard identification and delineation of lands vulnerable to sea level ­ apping Partners; available online at <­ M rise, Journal of Coastal Research, in press. library/>. Hallstrom, D., and V.K. Smith, 2005, Market responses to hurri­ FEMA, 2004, Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Glossary of Terms, canes, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, Washington, D.C., 541-561. 28 pp.; available online at <­ Halsing, D., K. Theissen, and R. Bernkopf, 2004, A Cost-Benefit hydropower/safety/guidelines/fema-148.pdf>. Analysis of the National Map, U.S. Geological Survey Circular FEMA, 2005a, Design and Construction in Coastal A Zones, Hurri­ 1271, Reston, Va., 49 pp. cane Katrina Recovery Advisory, 5 pp.; available online at Heinz Center, 2000, Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, a Collaborative <>. Project of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Econom- FEMA, 2005b, Evaluation of Alternatives in Obtaining Struc- ics and the Environment, Prepared for the Federal Emergency tural Elevation Data, prepared by Dewberry & Davis LLC, Management Agency, 205 pp.; available online at <http://www. 136 pp.; available online at < alt_elevations/elevations_final.pdf>. bookmarks&view=Fit>. FEMA, 2006a, Flood Map Modernization, Mid-course Adjustment; Hodge, S.A., and G.D. Tasker, 1995, Magnitude and Frequency of available online at < Floods in Arkansas, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources do?id=2195>. Investigations Report 95-4224, Denver, Colo., 277 pp. FEMA, 2006b, Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Map- Holoway, J.M., and R. Burby, 1990, The effects of floodplain devel­ ping Partners, Final Draft, October 2006, FEMA Region VI, opment controls on residential land values, Land Economics, 66, Washington, D.C., 360 pp. 259-270. FEMA, 2006c, Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast, Mitigation IACWD (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data), 1982, Assessment Team Report, Building Performance Observations, Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin 17B Recommendations, and Technical Guidance, FEMA 549, 584 (revised and corrected), U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., 186 pp.; available online at < pp.; available online at <­bulletin17b/ do?id=1857>. dl_flow.pdf>. FEMA, 2006d, Recommended Residential Construction for the Gulf IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007, Coast: Building on Strong and Safe Foundations, FEMA 550, 261 ­ limate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Work- C pp.; available online at < ing Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report do?id=1853>. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core FEMA, 2007a, Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Guidelines Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri, and A. Reisinger, eds., Geneva, Update, 360 pp.; available online at <­ S ­ witzerland, 104 pp. library/>. IPET (Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force), 2008, FEMA, 2007b, Guidance for Validating Flood Hazard Data: Flood ­ erformance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast P Map Modernization, issued April 9, 2007, Washington, D.C., ­ ouisiana Hurricane Protection System, Final Report, 9 volumes; L 15 pp. available online at <>. FEMA, 2007c, Revised Procedure Memorandum 38— Jones, C., W. Coulbourne, and P. Tertell, 2001, Consideration of a I ­ mplementation of Floodplain Boundary Standard (Section 7 new flood hazard zone: Coastal A zone, in New Trends in Flood- of MHIP V 1.0), issued by Doug Bellomo, Risk Analysis Divi- plain Management, Association of State Floodplain Managers sion, on October 17, 2007. Conference Proceedings, Charlotte, N.C., pp. 21-25. FEMA, 2008a, FEMA’s Risk MAP Strategy—Integrating Mapping, Jones, C.P., W.L. Coulbourne, J. Marshall, and S.M. Rogers, Assessment, and Mitigation Planning, Draft Strategy, February Jr., 2006, Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program’s 20, 2008; available online at < B­uilding Standards, Federal Emergency Management ­Agency; shtm>. available online at <­nfipeval. FEMA, 2008b, Guidance for Coastal Flood Hazard Analyses and shtm>. Mapping in Sheltered Waters, Technical Memorandum, Febru- MacEachren, A.M., A. Robinson, S. Hopper, S. Gardner, R. Murray, ary 2008, 22 pp. M. Gahegan, and E. Hetzler, 2005, Visualizing geospatial infor- FEMA, 2008c, Multi-year Flood Hazard Identification Plan, version mation uncertainty: What we know and what we need to know, 3, 24 pp.; available online at < Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 32, 139-160.>.

REFERENCES 103 Maune, D.F., ed., 2007, Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Sheng, Y.P., and V. Alymov, 2002, Coastal Flooding Analysis of Pinel- Applications: The DEM Users Manual, 2nd edition, American las County Using ALSM Data: A Comparison between UF’s 2-D Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Method and Results vs. FEMA’s Method and Results, Final Report Md., 655 pp. for Pinellas County, Florida, Department of Civil and Coastal Maurstad, D., 2008, Levees, risk, and shared responsibility: The Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 67 pp. federal perspective, Annual Meeting of the National Associa- Smith, M.B., K.P. Georgakakos, and L. Xu, 2004, The distributed tion of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, Napa, model intercomparison project (DMIP), Journal of Hydrology, Calif., August. 298, 1-3. Merz, B., and A.H. Thieken, 2005, Separating natural and Smith, M.B., V.I. Koren, S.M. Reed, Z. Zhang, Y. Zhang, F. epistemic uncertainty in flood frequency analysis, Journal of Moreda, Z. Cui, N. Mizukami, and S. Sheldon, 2008, The ­ ydrology, 309, 114-132. H distributed model intercomparison project: Phase 2 Motivation Mileti, D.S., C. Fitzpatrick, and B.C. Farhar, 1992, Lessons from and experiment design, Journal of Hydrology, in review. the Parkfield earthquake prediction, Environment, 34, 16-39. Smith, V.K., J.C. Carbone, J.C. Pone, D. Hallstrom, and M.E. Montz, B.E., and G.A. Tobin, 1988, The spatial and temporal Darden, 2006, Adjusting to natural disasters, Journal of Risk and variability of residential real estate values in response to flood- Uncertainty, 33, 37-54. ing, Disasters: The International Journal of Disasters Study and Sorooshian, S., and V.K. Gupta, 1983, Automatic calibration of Practice, 12, 167-177. conceptual rainfall-runoff models—The question of parameter NCFMP (North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program), 2008, observability and uniqueness, Water Resources Research, 19, 260- Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Benefits, Raleigh, N.C., 268. in preparation; available online at <http://www.ncfloodmaps. Sorooshian, S., V.K. Gupta, and J.L. Fulton, 1983, Evaluation com/program_review.htm>. of maximum-likelihood parameter-estimation techniques for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, 1992, conceptual rainfall-runoff models—Influence of calibration Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Develop- data variability and length on model credibility, Water Resources ments, 178 pp.; available online at <­ Research, 19, 251-259. chemical/29080.html>. Tasker, G.D., and R.M. Slade, Jr., 1994, An interactive regional NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2007, regression approach to estimating flood quantiles, in D.G. The GRAV-D Project: Gravity for the Redefinition of the American F ­ ontane and H.N. Tuvel, eds., Water Policy and Management— Vertical Datum, 38 pp.; available online at <http://www.ngs.noaa. Solving the Problems, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference gov/GRAV-D/GRAV-D_v2007_12_19.pdf/>. of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division, NRC (National Research Council), 1977, Methodology for Calcu- May 23-26, 1994, American Society of Civil Engineers, Denver, lating Wave Action Effects Associated with Storm Surges, National Colo., pp. 782-785. Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 11 pp. Tasker, G.D., and J.R. Stedinger, 1989, An operational GLS model NRC, 1990, Managing Coastal Erosion, National Academy Press, for hydrologic regression, Journal of Hydrology, 111, 361-375. Washington, D.C., 204 pp. Tate, E.C., F. Olivera, and D.R. Maidment, 2002, Creating a NRC, 2000, Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Re- terrain model for floodplain mapping, Journal of Hydrologic duction Studies, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., Engineering, 7, 100-108. 202 pp. TRB (Transportation Research Board), 2006, Criteria for Selecting NRC, 2006, Improved Seismic Monitoring, Improved Decision-­Making, Hydraulic Models, National Cooperative Highway Research National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 183 pp. Program Web-Only Document 106, 720 pp.; available online NRC, 2007, Elevation Data for Floodplain Mapping, National at < Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 152 pp. pdf>. OIG (Office of Inspector General), 2000, Audit of FEMA’s Cost Tung, C.C., B. Kasal, S.M. Rogers, Jr., and S.C. Yeh, 1999, Behavior Estimate for Implementing the Flood Map Modernization Plan, of Breakaway Wall Subjected to Wave Forces: Analytical and Experi­ FEMA, Audit Report H-09-00, Washington, D.C., 42 pp. mental Studies, North Carolina Sea Grant, UNC-SG-99-03, Olson, R.A., and R.S. Olson, 2001, Socioeconomic reverberations Raleigh, N.C., 49 pp. of earthquake prediction: Snapshot in time, Peru, 1979-1981, USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1975, Guidelines for Natural Hazards Review, 2, 124-131. Identifying Coastal High Hazard Zones, Galveston, Tex., 92 pp. OMB (Office of Management and Budget), 1992, Guidelines and USACE, 2005, Coastal Storm Damage Relationships Based on Expert Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Opinion, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, Va., 22 pp. C ­ ircular A-94, October 29, 1992; available online at <http:// Walker, S.W., and D.R. Maidment, 2006, Geodatabase Design for>. FEMA Flood Hazard Studies, CRWR Online Report 2006-10, Pope, B.F., G.D. Tasker, and J.C. Robbins, 2001, Estimating the Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas, Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Rural Basins of North Austin, 186 pp.; available online at <http://www.crwr.utexas. Carolina—Revisited, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources edu/reports/2006/rpt06-10.shtml>. Investigations Report 01-3207, Raleigh, N.C., 54 pp. Wetmore, F., G. Bernstein, D. Conrad, C. DiVincenti, L. Larson, Rogers, S.M. Jr., 1990, Designing for storm surge and wave ­damage D. Plasencia, and R. Riggs, 2006, The Evaluation of the National in coastal buildings, in 22nd Coastal Engineering Conference, Flood Insurance Program: Final Report, American Institutes for Proceedings of the International Conference, July 2-6, 1990, Research, Washington, D.C., 53 pp.; available online at <http:// American Society of Civil Engineers, Delft, The Netherlands,>. pp. 2908-2921.

104 MAPPING THE ZONE Yapo, P.O., H.V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian, 1996, Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Sensitivity to calibration data, Journal of Hydrology, 181, 23-48. Yapo, P.O., H.V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian, 1998, Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models, Journal of Hydrology, 204, 83-97.

Next: Appendixes »
Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood Map Accuracy Get This Book
Buy Paperback | $44.00 Buy Ebook | $35.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps portray the height and extent to which flooding is expected to occur, and they form the basis for setting flood insurance premiums and regulating development in the floodplain. As such, they are an important tool for individuals, businesses, communities, and government agencies to understand and deal with flood hazard and flood risk. Improving map accuracy is therefore not an academic question--better maps help everyone.

Making and maintaining an accurate flood map is neither simple nor inexpensive. Even after an investment of more than $1 billion to take flood maps into the digital world, only 21 percent of the population has maps that meet or exceed national flood hazard data quality thresholds. Even when floodplains are mapped with high accuracy, land development and natural changes to the landscape or hydrologic systems create the need for continuous map maintenance and updates.

Mapping the Zone examines the factors that affect flood map accuracy, assesses the benefits and costs of more accurate flood maps, and recommends ways to improve flood mapping, communication, and management of flood-related data.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook,'s online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!