1 / 35

Results of Cameron Parish DFIRM appeal

Lonnie G. Harper & Associates, Inc. Results of Cameron Parish DFIRM appeal. Lonnie G. Harper, PE & PLS (LGH) David Minton, PE (LGH) Dr. Joseph Suhayda (Coastal Oceanographic Consultant) Dr. Roy Dokka (LSU C4G) Dr. Eddie Lyons (McNeese State University). Key Parish concerns.

heriberto
Download Presentation

Results of Cameron Parish DFIRM appeal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lonnie G. Harper & Associates, Inc. Results of Cameron Parish DFIRM appeal Lonnie G. Harper, PE & PLS (LGH) David Minton, PE (LGH) Dr. Joseph Suhayda (Coastal Oceanographic Consultant) Dr. Roy Dokka (LSU C4G) Dr. Eddie Lyons (McNeese State University)

  2. Key Parish concerns • THE PRELIMINARY DFIRMs RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT CONVERSION OF A ZONES TO V ZONES IN CAMERON PARISH • BUILDING WITHIN V ZONES RESULTS IN INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS • FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IS UNAVAILABLE IN V ZONES

  3. ABFE

  4. DFIRM

  5. TECHNICAL ISSUES: Storm Surge • CALIBRATION ERRORS ARE PRESENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE HINDCAST FOR HURRICANE RITA: ERRORS IN PREDICTED HIGH-WATER MARKS (HWM) COMPARED TO MEASURED HWM AS GREAT AS+/- 4.5 FEET • AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY ADCIRC GRID HAS REVEALED MAJOR CHENIER RIDGES, LEVEES, MANMADE FEATURES, AND OTHER TOPOGRAPHIC DATA WERE OMITTED FROM THE MODEL

  6. CAMERON PARISH AREA

  7. TOPOGRAPHIC DATA • LGH COMPLETED A REVIEW OF MUCH OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA USED FOR FIS • FIELD SURVEY DATA HAS BEEN GATHERED FOR COMPARISON TO ADCIRC AND LIDAR • ADCIRC VS. LIDAR • WHAFIS VS. LIDAR • LIDAR VS. SURVEY ELEVATIONS

  8. Adcirc / lidar comparison:LITTLE CHENIER MAX ELEVATION: 2.22 FEET Rev 12-15-2008

  9. Adcirc / lidar comparison:LITTLE CHENIER MAX ELEVATION: +10 FEET Rev 12-15-2008

  10. LIDAR CONCERNS • LIDAR NAVD88 (2004.65) WAS REPORTEDLY USED AS THE VERTICAL DATUM • THE SPARSENESS OF FEMA’S TOPOGRAPHIC DATA USED IN THEIR WHAFIS MODEL OMITS MAJOR TERRAIN FEATURES • FOLLOWING SLIDES ILLUSTRATE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELEVATIONS FROM FEMA’S WHAFIS MODEL AND ELEVATIONS EXTRACTED FROM LIDAR NAVD88 (2004.65) Rev 12-15-2008

  11. LIDAR COMPARISON LARGE INTERPOLATIONS OMIT MAJOR TERRAIN FEATURES Rev 12-15-2008

  12. LIDAR / SURVEY comparison • THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ILLUSTRATE THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN LIDAR TOPOGRAPHIC DATA AND LGH & ASSCS GPS SURVEYED TOPOGRAPHIC DATA Rev 12-15-2008

  13. LIDAR / SURVEY comparison Rev 12-15-2008

  14. MODEL ERRORS Rev 12-15-2008

  15. WHAFIS ERRORS • STARTING POINT TYPICALLY BEGINS 500 FEET IN GULF OF MEXICO • DUNE (DU) COMMAND LINE USED TO MODEL STRUCTURES SUCH AS LEVEES OR SEAWALLS OMITTED FROM THE WHAFIS MODEL • WHAFIS TERRAIN DATA DOES NOT REFLECT ACTUAL CONDITIONS • OVERWATER FETCH (OF) VS. INLAND FETCH (IF) AND VEGETATION HEADER (VH) Rev 12-15-2008

  16. WHAFIS ERRORS • A ZONE AREAS AS DEFINED BY WHAFIS ARE OMITTED FROM DFIRMs • IMPROPER DEFINITION OF DRAG COEFFICIENT FOR VEGETATION HEADER COMMAND LINES Rev 12-15-2008

  17. STARTING POINT SHIFT • EVERY WHAFIS TRANSECT (104) HAS BEEN SHIFTED SOUTH RESULTING IN THE STARTING POINT OF EACH TRANSECT BEING OVER THE OPEN WATER OF THE GULF OF MEXICO • THIS HAS RESULTED IN STATIONS, WITH COMMAND LINES MODELING VEGETATION (VH OR VE), BEING LOCATED OVER OPEN WATER Rev 12-15-2008

  18. STARTING POINT SHIFT: AREA BETWEEN HOLLY BEACH AND CAMERON COMMAND STATION DISTANCE FROM BEGINNING ELEVATION VEG TYPE Rev 12-15-2008

  19. STARTING POINT SHIFT: SOUTHEASTERN MOST TRANSECT Rev 12-15-2008

  20. OF vsvh command line • THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES OF OVERWATER FETCH (OF) COMMAND LINES BEING USED WHERE VEGETATION HEADER (VH) COMMAND LINE SHOULD BE USED. THIS, IN EFFECT, CAUSES A LAKE TO MODELED IN REGIONS WHERE EMERGENT LAND EXISTS • ONE EXAMPLE IS THE SOUTHERN END OF TRANSECT 17, LOCATED IN THE JOHNSON BAYOU AREA Rev 12-15-2008

  21. OF vs VH COMMAND LINE Rev 12-15-2008

  22. OF vs IF COMMAND LINE • OF (OVERWATER FETCH) COMMAND LINE IS USED FOR WATER WITH DEPTHS GREATER THAN 10 FEET, SUCH AS LAKES OR BAYS • IF (INLAND FETCH) COMMAND LINE IS FOR SHELTERED WATER WITH A DEPTH OF LESS THAN 10 FEET Rev 12-15-2008

  23. OF vs IF COMMAND LINE SHOULD BE MODELED AS IF COMMAND LINE RATHER THAN OF Rev 12-15-2008

  24. Wave Model Validation • LGH INSTALLED SENSORS THROUGHOUT CAMERON PARISH FOR HURRICANE IKE • 7 UNITS AT 0.5 SECOND INTERVALS • 4 UNITS AT 2 SECOND INTERVALS • LGH CREATED A WAVE HEIGHT TO WATER DEPTH RATIO FROM ACTUAL FIELD DATA FROM HURRICANE IKE Rev 12-15-2008

  25. Rev 12-15-2008

  26. VEGETATION MAPS • ONLY ONE TYPE OF VEGETATION (SPARTINA PATENS) WAS USED IN FEMA’S WHAFIS MODEL • CAMERON PARISH CONTAINS AT LEAST FIVE (5) DIFFERENT TYPES OF TERRAIN: • FRESHWATER MARSH • INTERMEDIATE MARSH • BRACKISH MARSH • SALTWATER MARSH • OTHER (EMERGENT TERRAIN USUALLY FOUND ON CHENIER RIDGES) Rev 12-15-2008

  27. VEG MAPS: WEST CAMERON PARISH HACKBERRY CALCASIEU LAKE CREOLE CAMERON HOLLY BEACH JOHNSONBAYOU OAKGROVE GULF OF MEXICO Rev 12-15-2008

  28. CORRECTED WHAFIS SIMULATIONS • ALL TRANSECTS WERE MODIFIED AND RECOMPUTED BY LGH BASED ON THE FOLLOWING INPUT MODIFICATIONS: • STARTING POINT PLACED IN PROPER POSITION • PROPER COMMAND LINES INSERTED IN INPUT FILES • CORRECTED ELEVATIONS • CORRECTED VEGETATION PROPERTIES Rev 12-15-2008

  29. CORRECTED WHAFIS SIMULATIONS A ZONES ACHIEVED WITH PROPER STARTING POINT, ELEVATIONS, COMMAND LINES, AND DEFAULT VALUE FOR Cd Rev 12-15-2008

  30. A ZONES: CAMERON A ZONES INCREASE DRAMATICALLY AS Cd INCREASES Rev 12-15-2008

  31. SUMMARY • LOW RESOLUTION OF TOPOGRAPHIC DATA IN ALL MODELS • POOR CALIBRATION OF SURGE MODEL • IMPROPER APPLICATION OF INPUT DATA • INCONSISTENT ELEVATION DATA BETWEEN MODELS • OMISSION OF INPUT DATA • USE OF REGIONAL SURGE MODEL FOR A SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITH UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES MAY YIELD QUESTIONABLE SWEL RESULTS Rev 12-15-2008

  32. ABFE Rev 12-15-2008

  33. LGH Revised Rev 12-15-2008

  34. DFIRM

  35. LGH Revised Rev 12-15-2008

More Related