My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD09505
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
FLOOD09505
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:09:27 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 4:24:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Standards for Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Date
10/1/1993
Prepared By
FEMA
Floodplain - Doc Type
Historic FEMA Regulatory Floodplain Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />conflict with existing USGS schema. (This file coding concept allows flexibility <br />in the use of specific data and minimizes computer processing of superfluous <br />data. ) <br /> <br />Applications of Digital FIRMs <br /> <br />In the development and use of digital maps, users must consider the inherent <br />accuracy of source maps. National map accuracy standards for horizontal and <br />vertical position have been developed. When applied to a 1:24,000 scale USGS <br />7.S-minute quadrangle topographic map, the standard map used for creating FIRM <br />base maps, the horizontal accuracy standard requires that, "90\ of all points <br />tested must be accurate to within 1/50th of an inch (O.OS centimeters) on the <br />map" (from USGS pamphlet "Map Accuracy", obtainable from: DOl-USGS, Earth Science <br />Information Center, 507 National Center, Reston, VA, 22092). At the 1:24,000 map <br />scale l/SOth of an inch is the equivalent of 40 feet~ <br /> <br />Map accuracy standards should be a consideration of hardcopy and digital FIRM <br />(DFIRM) users. Paper FIRMs are published at scales ranging from 1 inch = 500 <br />feet, to 1 inch = 2000 feet. However, FIRMs published at scales larger than <br />1:2000 are normally only an enlargement of smaller scale maps~ Therefore, map <br />users cannot use the scale of the published FIRM as the basis for estimating the <br />horizontal accuracy of FIRM data~ The cartographic procedures used to produce <br />FIRMs were not designed with the objective of meeting national map accuracy <br />standards~ This is reflected by the use of an approximate scale and the lack of <br />horizontal control on FIRMs~ <br /> <br />In general, cartographic procedures used in the production of FIRMs stress <br />preserving the correct relative relationship between Special Flood Hazard Area <br />(SFHA) boundaries and zones with hydrographic features and principle roads in and <br />near the SFHA. <br /> <br />The DFIRMs product is intended to convey all thematic information required to <br />implement the mandate of the NFIP~ Base map data, such as roads, are not <br />included with the DLG-3 FIRM product. Specifications for the digitizing of FIRMs <br />to create the OLG-3 thematic flood risk overlay are generally consistent with <br />those required for mapping at the scale of 1:24,000. As such, the DLG-3 FIRMs <br />are optimized for overlay of the USGS 7.S-minute topographic. quadrangle maps. <br /> <br />At present, all USGS 7. S-minute topographic quadrangle maps have not been <br />digitized. Available public domain digital map data that may provide adequate <br />base map informatio~ for some applications of digital FIRMS (OFIRMs) include the <br />USGS 1:100,000 scale quadrangle maps and the U.S~ Bureau of the Census TIGER <br />files. However, users should familiarize themselves with the limitations of <br />these products~ For example, according to national map accuracy standards, the <br />horizontal accuracy of 1:100,000 scale maps can be stated as 90\ of all points <br />deviating from their true position on the earth by less than approximately 167 <br />feet~ The Census TIGER data was compiled from multiple sources, including the <br />USGS 1:100,000 scale data, and the quality of horizontal control is variable. <br />Other issues common to both the USGS and TIGER data include completeness of the <br />road work and hydrography, "'{" features at road intersections that are artifacts <br />of the scan digitizing and vectorization processes used to create much of these <br />data, and lack of shape of points. Finally, users must constantly keep in mind <br /> <br />10/93 <br /> <br />iii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.