Flood DSS Prototype Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.2.2 Data Availability and Quality FEMA FIRM maps are largely available, while DFIRM mapping in Colorado is in progress under the coordination of the CWCB. FIRM and DFIRM maps have clear and wide utility in flood decision support, and should thus form the core of flood information for the DSS. Digital FIRM maps should be used where DFIRM products are not yet available, thus if FIRM maps have not yet been scanned or digitized for use within a GIS then the local agency might be given assistance to do this via the full Flood DSS implementation. This would be most important if a proposed DFIRM is far from completion. In general, it is expected that the State's relationship with Certified Floodplain Managers (CFMs) across Colorado should greatly assist with the process of collecting and integrating FIRM and DFIRM data into the DSS. CFMs exist in many state and city agencies, and typically have understanding of FIRM - DFIRM data and experience using it in a GIS format. Some discussion may be warranted regarding the inclusion of both FIRM and DFIRM information in the DSS. Other data layers typically available at the county scale, such as "Geologic Hazards" (6b in Table A.1), are far less likely to be of consistent content and quality and may require considerable interpretation and processing to be of value in the DSS. Data layers describing aspects of historical floods in detail such as "Damage Zone Buffer" (3d in Table A.1) are likely to be less common. Disadvantages to including these ad -hoc data are that they will be inconsistent in structure and quality from region to region, and may also be contentious — the Fort Collins data identify flood damage zones (and individual properties) outside of FEMA delineated floodways. Advantages are that they provide an example of the utility of this type of information that may encourage others to collect spatial data in future floods, and may lead to guidelines and standardization of the data produced in this process, enhancing its utility. Data at the statewide scale should generally provide fewer problems in terms of availability and consistent content and quality. State - maintained data such as "DWR Dams" (5a in Table A.1) will only require general maintenance to update for new dams over time, and to update attributes such as hazard status. Incorporating data that require more regular update, specifically layers in the "Flood Outlook" data group (Table A.1), will require development of a process to receive, process, and integrate this information at the appropriate time intervals (see Section 3.3.3 below). In the future, it may be possible to utilize web services to retrieve data from other sites, although such services have limited availability at this time. 3.2.3 Digitizing data Digitizing was kept to a minimum for the Flood DSS prototype. However, it is likely that for the full DSS, digitizing FIRMS may be necessary. Counties and cities may have in some cases digitized their own FIRM maps (e.g. City of Fort Collins), although this may be less likely in more rural areas. DFIRMs will of course replace FIRMs, but in several locations these may not be completed for some time. 3.2.4 Background Data National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) color aerial photographs are available for the entire state. These data have a one -meter ground sample distance (GSD) with a horizontal accuracy that matches within five meters of a reference orthoimage. These image data are recommended for use in the full Flood DSS. 3.2.5 Develop Data Standards for Coordination Between Agencies The focus of several important data layers is county or municipality. However, counties and municipalities have varying levels of resources to apply to flood - related spatial data. If the Flood DSS is to serve as a clearinghouse for flood - related data, it will be important to develop standards for data (format, attributes, metadata, etc.), and procedures to process and exchange the data. For example, well- 10