Flood Map Modernization: Program Strategy Shows Promise, but Challenges Remain
Published: 2004-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Flood maps identify areas at greatest risk of flooding and provide the foundation for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The maps are used by (1) communities to establish minimum building standards designed to reduce the impact of flooding, (2) FEMA to set insurance rates, and (3) lenders to identify property owners who are required to purchase flood insurance. Nearly 70 percent of all flood maps are more than 10 years old, according to FEMA. In an effort to update its flood maps, FEMA is implementing a $1 billion, 5-year map modernization program. GAO was asked to review the progress of FEMA's map modernization program.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Through its map modernization program, FEMA intends to use advanced technologies to produce more accurate and accessible digital flood maps available on the Internet. These maps are expected to improve community efforts to reduce the impact of floods, increase property owners' use of flood insurance, and improve community, state and federal efforts to reduce the risks of other natural and man-made hazards. In developing digital flood maps, FEMA plans to incorporate data that are of a level of specificity and accuracy commensurate with communities' relative flood risk. According to FEMA, there is a direct relationship between the types, quantity, and detail of the data and analysis used to develop maps and the costs of obtaining and analyzing those data. Although FEMA ranked the nation's 3,146 counties from highest to lowest risk, it has not yet established data standards that describe the appropriate level of detail, accuracy, and analysis required to develop digital maps based on risk level. Without such standards, FEMA cannot ensure that it uses the same level of data collection and analysis for all communities in the same risk category. Such standards can also help FEMA to target its map modernization resources more efficiently by matching the level of data collection and analysis with the level of flood risk. FEMA has developed partnerships with states and local entities that have begun mapping activities and has a strategy on how to best work with these entities. However, the overall effectiveness of FEMA's future partnering efforts is uncertain because FEMA has not yet developed a clear strategy for partnering with communities with less resources and little or no experience in flood mapping. By developing such a strategy, FEMA will be better able to identify and use the most effective approaches to engage all of its partners in map modernization.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Floods inflict more damage and economic losses upon the United States  than any other natural disaster. During the 10 years from fiscal year 1992  through fiscal year 2001, flooding caused over 900 deaths and resulted in  approximately $55 billion in damages. Since its inception 36 years ago, the  National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has combined the development  of flood maps to identify the areas at greatest risk of flooding with  mitigation efforts to reduce or eliminate flood risks to people and  property and the availability of insurance that property owners can  purchase to protect themselves from flood losses. To date, the flood  insurance program has paid about $12 billion in insurance claims,  primarily from policyholder premiums, that otherwise would have been  paid, at least in part, from taxpayer-funded disaster relief.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for  managing the NFIP, including the development of flood maps. Accurate  flood maps that identify the areas at greatest risk of flooding are the  foundation of the NFIP. The maps are principally used by (1) the  approximately 20,000 communities participating in the NFIP to adopt and  enforce the program’s minimum building standards for new construction  within the maps’ identified floodplains, (2) FEMA to develop accurate  flood insurance policy rates based on flood risk, and (3) federally  regulated mortgage lenders to identify those property owners who are  statutorily required to purchase federal flood insurance. Under the  National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, property owners  whose properties are within the designated floodplain and have a  mortgage from a federally regulated financial institution are required to  purchase federal flood insurance. Flood maps can become outdated for a  variety of reasons, such as erosion or community growth and development  that can affect the drainage patterns of rainwater. Thus, flood maps must  be periodically updated to assess and map changes in the boundaries of  floodplains that result from community growth, development, erosion, and  other factors that affect the boundaries of areas at risk for flooding.  According to FEMA, limited funding for flood mapping has resulted in a  backlog of outdated maps. FEMA estimates that as of March 2004 nearly  70 percent of the nation’s flood maps were more than 10 years old and  reflected outdated data that could affect the ability to accurately identify  current flood hazard areas.
With congressional support and funding, FEMA has embarked on a   $1 billion, 5-year effort to update the nation’s flood maps. Recognizing that  FEMA is currently in the early stages of its map modernization effort, our  objectives for this review were to answer the following questions: (1) How  is map modernization intended to improve the accuracy and accessibility  of the nation’s flood maps? (2) What are the expected benefits of more  accurate and accessible flood maps? (3) To what extent does FEMA’s  strategy for managing the map modernization program support the  achievement of these benefits and what, if any, limitations could affect the  implementation of the strategy?
To answer these questions, we analyzed available information from FEMA  on the program’s purpose, objectives, and status and met with agency  officials in headquarters and in the regional offices to discuss the  program’s progress. We also conducted site visits to states and  communities that have already begun to modernize their flood maps and  interviewed industry organizations such as the Association of State Flood  Plain Managers, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater  Management Agencies, and the National Emergency Management  Association. We conducted our work from April 2003 to March 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See  appendix I for more details on our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FEMA is the primary federal agency responsible for assisting state and  local governments, private entities, and individuals to prepare for,  mitigate, respond to, and recover from natural disasters, including floods.  FEMA’s NFIP has served as a key component of the agency’s efforts to  minimize or mitigate the damage and financial impact of floods on the  public, as well as to limit federal expenditures needed after floods occur.
In 1968, to address the increasing amount of flood damage, the lack of  readily available insurance for property owners, and the cost to the  taxpayer for flood-related disaster relief, the National Flood Insurance Act  of 1968, created the NFIP. Since its inception, the program has sought to  minimize flood-related property losses by making flood insurance  available on reasonable terms and encouraging its purchase by people  who need flood insurance protection—particularly those living in the  areas at highest risk of flooding known as special flood hazard areas. The  program identifies and maps flood-prone areas in the country, makes flood  insurance available to property owners in the nearly 20,000 communities  that currently participate in the program, and requires floodplain  management efforts to mitigate flood hazards on the part of participating  communities.
FEMA’s flood maps are one of the basic, essential tools for flood hazard  mitigation in the United States. FEMA estimates that the maps are used an  estimated 30 million times annually in the private and public sectors.  FEMA uses the maps to identify the floodplain boundaries in which flood  insurance is required and to set flood insurance rates. Mortgage lending  institutions use the maps to determine who is required to purchase flood  insurance and ensure that flood insurance is purchased and maintained for  these properties. Community planning officials, land developers, and  engineers use the maps for designing new buildings and infrastructure to  be safe from flooding. See appendix II for more information on the various  stakeholders that use and rely upon flood maps.
Flood maps provide the basis for establishing floodplain building  standards that participating communities must adopt and enforce as part  of the program. For a community to participate in the program, any  structures built within special flood hazard areas—also known as 100-year  floodplains—that have a 1 percent or greater chance of experiencing  flooding in any given year must be built according to the program’s  building standards whose purpose is to minimize flood losses. A key  component of the program’s building standards that must be followed by  participating communities is a requirement that the lowest floor of the  structure be elevated to or above the base flood level—the elevation at  which there is a 1 percent chance of flooding in a given year. The  administration has estimated that local governments’ compliance with the  program’s standards for new construction is saving over $1 billion  annually in flood damage avoided.
Flood maps also provide the basis for setting insurance rates and  identifying properties whose owners are required to purchase flood  insurance. When the NFIP was created, the purchase of flood insurance  was voluntary. To increase the impact of the program, however, Congress  amended the original law in 1973 to require the purchase of flood  insurance in certain circumstances. Flood insurance is required for  structures in special flood hazard areas of communities participating in the  program if (1) any federal loans or grants were used to acquire or build the  structures or (2) the structures have outstanding mortgage loans made by  lending institutions that are regulated by the federal government. Owners  of properties without mortgages or properties with mortgages held by  unregulated lenders were not, and still are not, required to purchase flood  insurance, even if the properties are in special flood hazard areas.
Federal regulations require that FEMA communicate potential changes in  flood risk to the public when it decides to initiate a flood mapping study  and when it is ready to release preliminary maps. At the beginning of the  mapping process, FEMA is required to notify community stakeholders.  When FEMA is ready to release preliminary maps, the agency must publish  the proposed base flood elevations in the Federal Register for public  comment and notify the community of the results of the study. When the  final map is approved and implemented, FEMA publishes another Federal  Register notice.
In the early 1990s, some of the data and information FEMA collected to  develop flood maps were becoming available in digital format. In 1994, the  President issued Executive Order 12906, which mandated that standards  for digital geographic data be applied uniformly across the federal  government. Anticipating that electronic data would soon become the  standard vehicle for information delivery and in an attempt to make flood  map production more cost-effective and efficient, FEMA developed a  prototype for a digital flood map.
In 1997, FEMA developed its initial flood map modernization plan that  outlined the steps necessary to update the nation’s flood maps to digital  format and streamline FEMA’s operations in raising public awareness of  the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them.  This initial plan and subsequent updates to the plan reflected the  recommendations of the Technical Mapping Advisory Council created by  Congress and active from 1995-2000. The council provided a number of  recommendations which were aimed at making the digital flood map the  future method for assessing flood hazard risk and setting federal insurance  rates. Recognizing the importance of updating the nation’s flood maps,  Congress appropriated additional funds in fiscal years 2000-2002. FEMA  used these funds to launch its map modernization program through such  activities as developing new flood mapping standards and procedures,  expanding the Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) program that  recognizes and encourages state and local participation in flood hazard  data development and maintenance and developing some digital flood  maps. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $150 million, allowing  FEMA to initiate a full-scale update of the nation’s flood maps called the  Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program, an effort FEMA expects  to take about 5 years and cost about $1 billion. In fiscal year 2004,  Congress appropriated an additional $200 million for map modernization,  and the administration has requested an additional $200 million for fiscal  year 2005 to continue the program. FEMA has established four primary  objectives for implementing map modernization: (1) establish and  maintain a premier data collection and delivery system, (2) expand  outreach and better inform the user community, (3) build and maintain  mutually beneficial partnerships, and (4) achieve effective program  management. In March 2004, FEMA awarded a performance-based  contract for overseeing map modernization that includes contractor  performance measures for each of these objectives.
section_title: Map Modernization Intends to Use Advanced Technologies to Produce More Accurate and Accessible Digital Flood Maps
paragraphs: Through map modernization, FEMA intends to produce more accurate and  accessible flood maps by using advanced technology to gather accurate  data and make the resulting information available on the Internet.  Currently, many of the flood maps in FEMA’s inventory do not accurately  reflect the true flood hazard risks because over time, new development  and other factors altered watersheds and floodplains faster than the maps  could be updated. For the most part, the $35 million to $50 million in  annual flood insurance policy fees has been the only source of funding for  updating flood maps, and according to FEMA, the agency has not been  able to keep the maps updated with the funds available. As a result, nearly  70 percent of the nation’s approximately 92,222 flood maps are more than  10 years old and many of these maps reflect inaccurate data, according to  FEMA. Figure 1 shows the age distribution of the current map inventory.
Over time, physical conditions in watersheds and floodplains can change,  and improvements in the techniques for assessing and displaying flood  risks are made. FEMA plans to use the latest technology, such as  Geographic Information Systems (GIS), to create accurate digital flood  maps. GIS technology provides the foundation for achieving FEMA’s goals  of melding different types and sources of data to create the new digital  flood maps and making the new digital flood maps available to a variety of  users over the Internet.
The primary function of GIS is to link multiple digital databases and  graphically display that information as maps with potentially many  different types of “layers” of information. When layers of information are  formatted using the same standards, users can potentially overlay various  layers of information about any number of specific topics to examine how  the layers interrelate. Each layer of a GIS map represents a particular  “theme” or feature, and one layer could be derived from a data source  completely different from the other layers. For example, one theme could  represent all the streets in a specified area. Another theme could  correspond to the topography or elevation data of an area, and others  could show aerial photography and streams in the same area. These  themes are all key elements needed to create flood maps that accurately  depict floodplains and can be used to identify properties in these areas. In  preparing for full-scale implementation of map modernization, FEMA has  established standards and graphic specifications for digital flood maps  created with GIS. Figure 2 shows the concept of data themes in GIS for  flood maps.
GIS technology also enables the creation of more accurate and accessible  maps than would be possible with older mapping methods and technology.  The majority of FEMA’s flood map inventory was produced using manual  techniques that have inherent accuracy and accessibility limitations. For  example, in creating traditional paper flood maps, field measurements  taken by surveyors would have been transferred by hand to paper base  maps. If the paper base map contained any inaccuracies, then the field- survey data could be shown in the wrong place on the final flood map.  This would then result in floodplain boundaries being shown in the wrong  place.
subsections: section_title: Douglas County, Colorado
paragraphs: Recent remapping efforts in Douglas County, Colorado, show the accuracy  of digital maps using GIS technology compared with paper maps created  using manual techniques. As seen in figure 3, some areas (around cross  section J) shown outside the floodplain on the original map will be shown  in the floodplain based on the updated flood hazard information from a  new mapping study using GIS technology. More critically, some areas  shown outside the floodplain on the original map will now be shown in the  floodway, the most dangerous area of the floodplain (greatest depth,  highest flood water velocity). According to FEMA and community  officials, the limitations of the manual techniques used to create the  original map contributed to the resulting inaccuracy.
Using GIS technology to create digital flood maps minimizes mapping  errors and improves accuracy because each data component (e.g.,  streams, streets, etc.) would have a common geographic reference system.
By their nature, paper flood maps have limited accessibility as compared  with a digital map that can be made available on the Internet. The  expansion of Internet connectivity in recent years has substantially  enhanced the potential value of digital maps created with GIS because  now it is possible to locate and connect data from many distinct GIS  databases to develop analytical information on almost any topic that is  associated with physical locations. Digital flood maps created according to  FEMA’s standards are intended to provide users not only with the ability  to determine the flood zone and base flood elevations for a particular  location, but also with the ability to access other information like road,  stream, and public land survey data. Communities could use this  information for a variety of purposes, including decisions on future  development and evacuation routes.
As part of map modernization, FEMA has promoted the use of a variety of  advanced technologies to improve the accuracy of flood maps. In recent  years, for example, where it deems it appropriate, FEMA has promoted the  use of Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) remote sensing technologies  to generate highly detailed, digital elevation data. Elevation data are a key  component needed to determine flood risk and identify floodplain  boundaries. According to FEMA, for very flat areas where small changes in  elevation can have a large impact on where flood plain boundaries are  drawn, LIDAR can provide the level of detail needed to accurately  delineate these boundaries. Communities can also use detailed, digital  elevation data for planning and land development purposes. Figure 4  shows an airplane equipped with laser-pulsing sensors using LIDAR to  gather digital elevation data to measure the contours and crevices that  determine where floodwaters collect.
The state of North Carolina has been utilizing GIS and LIDAR technology  to develop new flood maps. As of February 2004, 8 counties had received  new effective flood maps, and 28 counties received new preliminary maps,  which are now under community review. The state has gathered elevation  data through LIDAR for 80 percent of the state. The maps and LIDAR and  other data can be freely accessed and downloaded by anyone who has  access to the Internet (http://www.ncfloodmaps.com). The state,  dependent on continued FEMA funding, expects to have the entire state  remapped by 2008. Figure 5 compares a digital flood map section  produced by North Carolina with the same area on the original paper map.
section_title: FEMA Expects Map Modernization to Increase the Likelihood Maps Will Be Used for Risk Management
paragraphs: FEMA expects map modernization to increase the likelihood that the more  accurate and accessible maps will be used for risk management purposes.  Specifically, FEMA expects the new maps to be used to (1) improve flood  mitigation, (2) increase flood insurance participation, and (3) improve  “multi-hazard” mitigation and risk management capabilities. First, FEMA  expects communities to be able to use these new and revised maps to  better manage and mitigate flood risk by regulating floodplain  development through building codes, ordinances, and regulations. Second,  the new maps also have the potential to help increase flood insurance  participation because they will more accurately identify those properties  that are in the floodplain and whose owners would be required to  purchase flood insurance. Compared with the existing paper maps,  accessing the new maps through the Internet will make it much easier for  lenders to identify property owners who should have flood insurance. In  addition, the newly revised flood maps should more accurately identify all  properties in the floodplain, including those whose owners do not have a  mortgage or whose mortgage is held by a lender that is not federally  regulated. Accurately identifying these property owners should assist  FEMA and communities in targeting their outreach about the importance  of flood insurance. Third, the data and infrastructure developed by map  modernization is also expected to help national, state, and local officials  mitigate and manage risk from multiple hazards, both natural and man- made. Accurate digital maps can provide more precise data on such things  as the location of hazardous material facilities, power plants, railroads,  and airports to state and national officials for planning development as  well as to assess internal weaknesses and evacuation routes. (Fig. 6  highlights these expected benefits.)
subsections: section_title: Map Modernization Is Expected to Improve Flood Mitigation
paragraphs: The more accurate and updated flood hazard information produced  through map modernization is expected to help improve flood mitigation  in participating communities. The NFIP requires participating  communities to adopt and enforce building standards based on the  floodplain boundaries and base flood elevations when maps are updated.  For example, the lowest floor of structures in new construction must be  elevated to at least the base flood elevations identified on the maps.  FEMA’s policy is to monitor communities to ensure that they have adopted  building standards that meet the minimum NFIP criteria and to ensure that  they are effectively enforcing these standards. If communities fail to  establish and enforce minimum NFIP flood plain building standards,  FEMA can suspend availability of federal flood insurance.
Communities also may use updated flood hazard data to take actions to  mitigate flooding that go beyond adopting the building standards required  by the NFIP. For example, communities may use the data from the maps  to identify where to conduct capital improvement projects designed to  mitigate flooding of structures in the floodplain. In addition, FEMA has  established a Community Rating System that provides discounts on flood  insurance premiums for those communities that take mitigation actions  beyond those required by the NFIP.
subsections: section_title: Sarasota County’s Use of Flood Map Data for Storm Water Capital Improvement Projects
paragraphs: Sarasota County, Florida, is in the process of modernizing its flood maps  and has been using the maps and the models behind them to implement  stormwater capital improvement projects whose purpose is to mitigate the  flood risk for structures now located in the floodplain. These efforts have  also resulted in lower insurance premiums for property owners.
In the late 1990s, because Sarasota County officials believed that current  maps did not accurately reflect changes to the floodplain that had  occurred due to development and other factors, they began an effort to  aggressively remap the county’s watersheds using GIS and new flood  modeling technologies. At the time, the county had experienced several  significant flooding events where hundreds of properties not depicted in  the floodplain on its 11-year old maps were damaged. Figure 7 shows both  the increase and decrease in the floodplain based on the county’s  remapping efforts.
The county has been using the maps to implement storm water  improvement projects such as retention ponds and levees that are  designed to improve drainage and, therefore, alter the floodplain.  Ultimately, these projects would result in structures no longer being in the  floodplain. County officials estimate that they have reduced the number of  structures in the floodplain by 75 percent (from 800 to under 200) through  these projects. According to these officials, the reduction in their  Community Rating System rating from an 8 to a 6 was due in large part to  their remapping efforts. They estimate that this reduction is saving the  community over $1 million a year in flood insurance premiums. Figure 8  shows an example of the impact one such capital improvement project  had on the floodplain in Sarasota County.
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, provides another example of how  communities may use revised maps as a basis for adopting and enforcing  building standards that exceed the standards required by the NFIP.
In February 2004, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, issued final digital  maps that not only show the floodplain boundaries and base flood  elevations used by FEMA to set insurance rates, but also include local land  use maps designed to guide future development. (See fig. 9.) These maps  are more restrictive than the FEMA maps, which are used for setting  insurance rates. The county uses these maps to require that the lowest  floor of all new construction is built an additional foot above the future  minimum base flood elevation identified by the map. Engineering and  economic studies estimate that this higher standard will save over $300  million in structure and content losses due to future flooding. As in the  case of Sarasota County, adopting these higher standards should result in  a better Community Rating System rating for the county and reduce  insurance rates for property owners.
section_title: Map Modernization Is Expected to Help Increase Flood Insurance Participation
paragraphs: Map modernization has the potential to help increase flood insurance  participation. The accuracy of the new maps should better identify at-risk  property owners who would be best served by obtaining flood insurance  whether or not the owners would be required to purchase insurance under  the NFIP’s mandatory purchase requirement. Moreover, the digital, GIS- based maps should make flood risk information more accessible to a  variety of users such as lenders and community officials who could  conduct targeted outreach at these property owners.
subsections: section_title: Outreach Efforts in Wilson and Johnston Counties, North Carolina
paragraphs: Recent outreach activities conducted during remapping in Wilson and  Johnston counties in North Carolina provide an example of the types of  information that can be provided to communities and property owners  through outreach efforts during map modernization.
As part of its map modernization program, the state of North Carolina  holds two meetings. The first meeting is held with the county and  community officials and floodplain administrators, and the second  meeting is open to the general public. The purpose of the meetings is to  provide an overview of the state’s program; an outline of flood hazard data  changes between the current maps and preliminary revised maps; and  guidance on the use of the maps, including how to view and download  data from the state’s Web site. After the state had completed preliminary  studies and maps for Wilson and Johnston counties, community officials  used the digital, GIS-based maps to identify structures that are located in  the newly identified floodplain. The counties then sent out letters to these  property owners that    notified them that their property was in a floodplain,   provided a telephone number to call for more information,   announced upcoming public meetings where the preliminary maps  would be discussed, and  identified the state’s Internet site where the flood maps could be  viewed (Wilson County).
By providing this information in advance, property owners could know  before the meeting whether their property was in the newly designated  floodplain. According to community officials, their outreach activities  provided the information necessary for the public to become aware of  their risk and know what actions could be taken to mitigate these risks.
It is important to note, however, that FEMA, states, and communities do  not have the authority to ensure that property owners who are subject to  the mandatory purchase of flood insurance requirement actually purchase  flood insurance. It is the federally regulated lenders’ responsibility to  ensure that borrowers purchase flood insurance and that the insurance  policy is maintained throughout the loan’s life as each new lender  servicing the loan becomes aware that the affected property is at risk for  flooding. Furthermore, owners of properties without mortgages or  properties with mortgages held by unregulated lenders are not required to  purchase flood insurance, even if the properties are in floodplains.
section_title: Map Modernization Is Expected to Improve Multi-Hazard Mitigation and Risk Management Capabilities
paragraphs: FEMA expects that the data developed, collected, and distributed through  map modernization will help national, state, and local emergency  managers mitigate and manage risk posed by other natural and man-made  hazards. Accurate digital base maps provide more precise data to state and  national officials for planning, such as the location of hazardous material  facilities, power plants, utility distribution facilities, and other  infrastructure (bridges, sewage treatment plants, buildings, and  structures). According to FEMA, map modernization will also support  DHS’s overall goal to reduce the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism by  providing GIS data and capabilities to other departmental functions. For  example, more accurate information on transportation systems such as  railroads, airports, harbors, ports, and waterways should be helpful in  assessing internal weaknesses and evacuation routes.
subsections: section_title: Flood-Inundation Application Developed by North Carolina
paragraphs: North Carolina’s use of information collected during flood mapping to  develop a flood-inundation application exemplifies how the data collected  through map modernization can be used for other risk management  purposes.
Leveraging the work done through the floodplain mapping program, North  Carolina is in the process of establishing a real-time flood-inundation and  flood forecast mapping Web application that will provide the public with  valuable safety information during weather events. During a storm, the  application will provide maps and information over the Internet that  display which land area, roads, and bridges are inundated by floodwaters.  Furthermore, to help ensure that the public is aware of high flood risk  areas, the state plans to develop an automated alert network that will  utilize different media to notify and warn emergency managers, law  enforcement, and the general public. North Carolina is currently working  with television broadcasters in the region to broadcast warnings and up- to-date safety information based upon information provided through the  Web application. The majority of deaths during Hurricane Floyd, which hit  North Carolina in 1999, occurred to individuals driving over flood- inundated roads and bridges. North Carolina hopes that their real-time and  forecasted inundation mapping application will help to prevent such  deaths during future storm events.
The flood forecasting component of North Carolina’s flood-inundation and  forecasting application was recently tested during Hurricane Isabel, which  struck in September of 2003. Using data collected by North Carolina, the  National Weather Service released an experimental Peak Forecast  Inundation Web site for predicting the flooding effects of the hurricane.  This was a new level of capability for the National Weather Service by  forecasting flood-inundation throughout a major portion of the river basin  rather than focusing solely on fixed forecasting locations. The  implementation of this new flood forecasting technology will greatly  enhance North Carolina’s flood warning Web application.
Figure 10 shows an example of how the flood-inundation application is  intended to work. As floodwaters rise and spread out over the landscape,  the flood-inundation application will produce maps to show the extent of  flooding and when roads, critical facilities, and other structures will  become flooded. The following maps show flooding in Greenville, North  Carolina, and are based on flood levels caused by Hurricane Floyd.
Harris County, Texas, offers another example of how the digital data  developed through map modernization could be used to plan for and  respond to man-made disasters.
To demonstrate the multi-hazard use of the digital data, community  officials showed how a spill response model could be developed to  determine the path of a petroleum spill at a Houston area refinery. The  model, developed with digital data by a private consultant, uses both  elevation data and aerial imagery collected through map modernization to  provide officials and emergency response personnel critical information to  determine the path of a chemical spill and potentially impacted  waterways. This information should provide local officials with valuable  information to aid in their mitigation and evacuation efforts and to protect  natural habitats. The figure shows how petroleum at a Houston area  refinery would probably flow from specific tanks if ruptured.
LIDAR data also provide a basis for three-dimensional modeling of the  location of buildings, tanks, and equipment that could be used to  determine the optimal location for fire-fighting equipment at the same  refinery. The reach of a water jet can be placed against the 3-D model to  determine the extent of coverage and identify obscured structures in the  “shadow” of other structures that would limit or block the reach of the  water jet. This same 3-D model could also be used in a vulnerability  analysis to locate potential targets within a given area that are at risk from  gunfire or hand-held rockets.
section_title: FEMA’s Strategy for Map Modernization Shows Promise, but Challenges Remain
paragraphs: FEMA’s strategy for managing map modernization is intended to support  the achievement of the expected program benefits of improved flood  mitigation, increased NFIP insurance participation, and improved multi- hazard mitigation and risk management capabilities. However, FEMA’s  approach to implementing the strategy poses several challenges that could  hamper the agency’s efforts. FEMA’s approach is based on four objectives.  Two objectives FEMA hopes to achieve through map modernization— building and maintaining a premier data collection and delivery system  and expanding outreach and better informing the user community—have  the potential to improve the use of flood maps for improved flood  mitigation and increased NFIP participation, as well as multi-hazard risk  management. The other two objectives—building and maintaining  mutually beneficial partnerships and achieving effective program  management—are intended to facilitate the achievement of the first two  objectives and their intended benefits efficiently and effectively.   Table 1 provides a brief description of FEMA’s four objectives for map  modernization and the challenges facing implementation.
subsections: section_title: In Its Efforts to Establish a New Data System, FEMA Has Not Yet Established Data Standards for Different Levels of Risk
paragraphs: The goal of FEMA’s objective to develop a new data system using the  latest technology is more efficient production, delivery and, thereby, the  use of flood maps. As discussed previously, FEMA hopes to accomplish  this by using geographic information systems technology that provides the  foundation for the production and delivery of more accurate digital flood  maps and multi-hazard data that is more accessible over the Internet.
In developing the new data system to update flood maps across the nation,  FEMA’s intent is to develop and incorporate flood risk data that are of a  level of specificity and accuracy commensurate with communities’ relative  flood risks. According to FEMA, there is a direct relationship between the  types, quantity, and detail of the data and analysis used for map  development and the costs associated with obtaining and analyzing those  data. FEMA believes it needs to strike a balance between the relative flood  risk faced by individual communities and the level of analysis and effort  needed to develop reliable flood hazard data if it is to update the nation’s  maps efficiently and effectively.
FEMA has ranked all 3,146 counties from highest to lowest based on a  number of factors, including, among other things, population, growth  trends, housing units, flood insurance policies and claims, repetitive loss  properties, and flood disasters. On the basis of this ranking, FEMA  established mapping priorities. However, FEMA has not yet established  standards on the appropriate data and level of analysis required to develop  maps based on risk level. FEMA has historically applied the same  minimum standards for all flood maps and supporting data. FEMA’s  Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners  provides guidance for selecting the level of analysis and effort to produce  flood hazard data and have generally been used on a case-by-case basis.  The guidelines do not specify standards to be used for all mapping  projects within a given risk category. Without establishing standards for  different categories of risk, FEMA cannot ensure that it uses the same  level of data collection and analysis across all communities within the  same risk category. These standards could also provide a consistent basis  for estimating the costs of developing maps in each risk category.  According to FEMA, the agency plans to develop standards that can be  applied to different levels of flood risk as part of a 5-year map  modernization implementation plan. FEMA expects this plan to be  completed by the end of fiscal year 2004; however, at the time of our  review, FEMA had not yet developed draft standards or incorporated this  task into its implementation plan.
section_title: FEMA’s Objective to Expand Outreach Efforts Recognizes the Agency Must Rely on Others to Achieve Map Modernization Benefits
paragraphs: FEMA’s objective to expand the scope and frequency of its outreach  efforts is intended to increase community and public acceptance of  revised maps and use of those maps. Historically, FEMA has only  contacted communities when initiating remapping and again when  preliminary maps are completed. These expanded outreach efforts reflect  FEMA’s understanding that it is dependent on others to achieve the  benefits of map modernization. For example, under the structure of the  NFIP, FEMA is dependent on communities to adopt and enforce FEMA’s  minimum building standards and on mortgage lenders to ensure  compliance with mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements. To  expand the scope of its outreach efforts, FEMA plans to involve a wide  variety of community participants—e.g., mayors, emergency managers,  lenders, property owners, insurance agents, and developers—in the  mapping process. To expand the frequency of outreach, FEMA intends to  increase community involvement, awareness, and participation  throughout the entire flood mapping process. Through a continual  education process, FEMA’s goal is to inform property owners and others  potentially affected by remapping efforts of steps they can take to mitigate  the risk of flooding, the types of damage and costs caused by flooding, and  the benefits of flood insurance.
According to FEMA, if a community is involved in and understands the  map modernization process, the community is more likely to accept and  trust the accuracy of the final, revised maps and is more likely to use the  maps’ hazard data to mitigate natural and man-made disasters. Conversely,  if affected property owners do not understand why their communities are  being mapped (or remapped) or why their property is now in a flood zone,  the unexpected additional expense of new or increased flood insurance  premiums can form the basis of significant community opposition to map  modernization activities and lead to formal appeals, litigation, and delays  in implementing map changes.
We visited several communities that have nearly completed or are engaged  in revising flood maps and talked with relevant officials about recent  mapping projects and the importance of outreach efforts. The experience  of Pinellas County, Florida, shows the potential consequences of a limited  outreach effort while the experiences of the Harris County Flood Control  District in Houston, Texas, and Hillsborough County, Florida, show the  potential benefits of a more expanded outreach strategy.
subsections: section_title: Pinellas County, Florida
paragraphs: Officials in Pinellas County, Florida, rejected revised flood hazard maps  developed by FEMA that raised base flood level elevations and placed  areas in newly established flood zones. According to community and  FEMA officials, FEMA did little to communicate with the community and  the public during the mapping process. According to FEMA, the agency  was only required to inform the community when the remapping project  was initiated in 1993 and again after the proposed maps were completed  and provided to the community for comment in December 1997. County  officials subsequently appealed the preliminary maps. According to local  officials, expanded outreach efforts by FEMA throughout this process  could have helped the community understand why the county was being  mapped and how the new maps reflected the true flood risks of the  properties shown in revised flood zones. After working closely with FEMA  and mapping contractor officials, the community finally accepted and  implemented the maps by establishing new building standards in  September 2003.
section_title: Harris County, Houston, Texas
paragraphs: The Harris County Flood Control District in Houston, Texas, took steps to  expand stakeholder and community outreach by releasing up to date flood  hazard map information on its Web site (http://www.tsarp.org). County  officials have also worked closely with the local newspaper to release  information on the updated flood hazard information to the public. In  addition, the county has held individual meetings with the county’s   35 flood plain managers to ensure that they understood the new flood  maps and were able to convey that information to citizens; hired a public  relations consultant to provide guidance on how to better utilize the media  to disseminate flood map information; and conducted a poll survey to  ascertain public opinion about flood hazard risk and to develop strategies  to better convey flood hazard information. County officials also developed  several committee groups to relay flood maps information that is  audience-specific, such as a technical discussion group that reviews  technical issues related to revising the flood maps and verifies  methodological assumptions.
section_title: Hillsborough County, Florida
paragraphs: Hillsborough County officials have conducted extensive outreach while  continuing to work with FEMA throughout the remapping process. To help  ensure that insurance companies, real estate agents, county workers, and  citizens utilize flood maps in a more efficient and effective manner, a  stakeholders outreach coalition was formed in March of 2003. The purpose  of this coalition is to create an information campaign for individual  property owners and businesses that will be directly impacted by the new  maps. The coalition includes representatives from the county’s Citizen  Advisory Committee, the insurance industry, real estate brokers, builders,  lenders, engineers, surveyors, and various county departments.  Hillsborough County is working in cooperation with FEMA to have final  maps in late 2004 and create a successful outreach program that could be  duplicated throughout the nation.
FEMA’s expanded outreach efforts are intended to educate the public of  the potential flood risk in communities and to encourage them to take  action. Communities that participate in the NFIP are required to establish  floodplain management ordinances that require new and substantially  improved structures in newly designated floodplains to meet NFIP  building standards. However, if a property was not located in the  floodplain in the old map, but is in the floodplain in the new revised map,  NFIP floodplain management regulations do not require those owners to  implement mitigation measures unless they make substantial  improvements to the structure. FEMA cannot compel affected property  owners to take steps to mitigate their properties against flood risks or to  purchase flood insurance. Under current notification requirements,  federally regulated lenders, not FEMA, serve as the primary channel for  notifying property owners whose mortgaged properties are subject to  flood insurance requirements. When property owners seek new  financing—through purchase or refinancing—federally regulated mortgage  lenders are required to determine if the property is in the floodplain, and,  if so, require the purchase of flood insurance. Lenders are not required to  monitor map changes or to notify property owners with existing  mortgages whose properties are identified in a floodplain by remapping if  they are not aware of the change in status.
Nonetheless, if federally regulated lenders become aware of flood map  changes that affect properties for which they hold mortgages through  FEMA notifications or flood zone determination companies, then they  must notify the property owner and require the purchase of flood  insurance. The information that must be provided to property owners is  limited to notifying property owners that their structure is in a floodplain,  providing a definition of a flood plain, and requiring the purchase of flood  insurance if they live in a participating NFIP community. As a result,  FEMA’s outreach efforts are important for supplementing the formal  requirements for notifying communities and property owners of map  changes.
section_title: FEMA’s Strategy for Partnering with States and Local Communities Does Not Include Communities with Few Resources to Assist in Flood Mapping
paragraphs: FEMA’s objective for building and maintaining mutually beneficial  partnerships is intended to facilitate and support the efficient production  and effective use of flood maps. According to FEMA, local, state, and  federal partners that have invested resources and assisted in managing  mapping activities have the potential to positively affect the detail,  accuracy, and quantity of the data collected and improve how these data  are used. As part of their strategy for partnering, FEMA provides guidance  to the states on how to develop “business plans” that document planned  efforts to develop states’ and communities’ capability and capacity to  oversee the collection, analysis, and implementation of flood data in their  state and community and to justify funding for these efforts. According to  FEMA, 38 states have begun drafting such plans. FEMA intends to use  these state business plans to help prioritize its continuing efforts to  develop map modernization partners.
Through its Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) program, FEMA has  developed partnerships with a variety of states and communities that have  developed their own data and provided their own funds to help update  local flood maps. Since 2000, FEMA has leveraged millions of dollars in  funding from 171 partners (states and local communities) for producing  maps through its CTP program. For example, from fiscal years 2000 to  2002, FEMA used $70 million of its federal map modernization funding  along with state and local funds to develop what FEMA has estimated to  be more than $155 million worth of new mapping data. Figure 12 compares  FEMA’s cumulative funding for new mapping data through the CTP  program with the total cumulative dollar value of data produced with  partner contributions since the program was established in 2000.
According to FEMA, partnering has other benefits as well. For example, in  the long-term, those states and communities with whom FEMA has  established partnerships may be more likely to accept final map changes,  expand their capabilities, and assume greater responsibility for  periodically developing and incorporating updated flood data, resulting in  cost savings to FEMA. FEMA’s partnership with the state of North  Carolina provides an example of a state assuming greater responsibility   for producing and maintaining flood maps.
subsections: section_title: Partnership with the State of North Carolina
paragraphs: According to North Carolina officials, the devastating flooding and  subsequent damage that occurred from Hurricane Floyd in 1999 led the  state of North Carolina to take action to address the limitations of the  existing FEMA flood maps. Approximately 80 percent of the homes  damaged or destroyed during Hurricane Floyd were not depicted in the  floodplain on the state’s flood maps. In 2000, North Carolina became the  first Cooperating Technical State under FEMA’s CTP program, agreeing to  assume primary ownership and responsibility of flood maps for all North  Carolina communities. Since then, according to state floodplain mapping  officials, the state has contributed approximately $41 million towards the  overall floodplain mapping program. On the basis of this amount, North  Carolina has covered approximately 65 percent of the total cost to date for  the remapping effort. To date, 8 counties had received new effective flood  maps and 28 counties received new preliminary maps, which are now  under community review. (See fig. 13.)
Some states and communities with few resources and technical capacities  or little history of flood mapping activities are likely to pose a challenge to  FEMA’s ability to fund and implement mapping activities. For example, we  talked with flood management officials in several smaller communities in  Montgomery County, Texas; Santa Cruz County, Arizona; and Larkspur,  Colorado. These officials said that their communities lacked either the  funding needed to develop flood data, the technological capability to  develop digital flood data and use geospatial information systems, or, in  some cases, the community support needed to conduct mapping activities.  One approach for obtaining additional resources, capabilities, and  community support would be for FEMA to facilitate coordination with  other agencies within the state that have a stake in, or could benefit from,  mapping activities. For example, state departments of transportation can  benefit from information in FEMA’s geospatial information system, such  as elevation data, in developing and implementing state roads and bridges.  North Carolina was able to get its state transportation department to help  fund the development of elevation data used for flood maps. FEMA has  not yet developed a strategy for how to partner with communities that do  not have the resources, capabilities, or motivation to initiate and sustain  mapping activities. Such a strategy could focus on how to assist these  potential partners in garnering community resources and developing  technological capabilities, how to coordinate with other agencies in their  state, and how to integrate these efforts with FEMA’s community outreach  efforts to gain community support for mapping activities.
section_title: New Program Management Contract Is Performance- Based, but FEMA May Have Difficulty Overseeing the Contract and Measuring Achievement of Program Objectives
paragraphs: In March 2004, FEMA awarded a performance-based contract to obtain  assistance from a nationwide mapping contractor to manage tasks  associated with the significant expansion of the map modernization  program. Unlike many traditional government service contracts, which  emphasize inputs rather than outcomes, a performance-based contracting  approach gives the contractor the flexibility to determine how best to  achieve the outcomes and links payment to the contractor’s ability to  achieve these outcomes—an approach supported by our past work in  federal contracting. Overseeing these types of contracts requires agency  staff with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to monitor the contractor’s  efforts using performance measures that accurately measure agreed-upon  outcomes.
FEMA may be limited in its ability to effectively manage the contract, as  well as the significant expansion of tasks associated with a five fold  increase in funding and related mapping activities that will continue to be  performed by agency staff. These tasks include managing grants for many  new mapping partners and administering contracts with independent firms  to develop and process a significantly larger quantity of flood data to  support local efforts. A staffing needs assessment completed by FEMA in  December 2003 identifies a need for an additional 75 staff with additional  skills, including contracting and program management capabilities. In  appropriating fiscal year 2004 map modernization funds, Congress  included a provision that would allow FEMA to use up to 3 percent, or   $6 million, for administrative purposes. As of March 2004, FEMA had filled  1 of the 75 positions by reallocating existing resources. According to  FEMA, it plans to fill another 33 positions using the administrative funding  identified in the fiscal year 2004 budget. In addition, FEMA also plans to  fill an additional 10 positions by moving staff from other FEMA  departments or filling vacancies. However, at the time of our review,  FEMA had not yet established a plan for filling the remaining   31 headquarters and regional positions.
One element of effective program management is establishing  performance measures to determine how well FEMA is achieving its map  modernization program objectives. FEMA has established performance  measures for all four of its program objectives. However, FEMA’s  measures for two of those objectives that directly support the use of flood  maps for risk management—to develop a premier data system and to  expand and better inform the user community are not clearly defined or  fully developed.
FEMA’s principal measure for developing and maintaining a premier data  collection and delivery system is the percent of the national population  with community-adopted, GIS data-based flood maps. However, this  measure does not indicate whether the maps themselves meet any FEMA-  established standards for accuracy. As noted earlier, FEMA has not yet  defined the minimum level of data collection and analysis for communities  with similar risk.
To measure the progress and success of expanding and better informing  the user community, FEMA established performance measures related to  the percent increase in communities’ awareness and use of new maps.  FEMA plans to use surveys as the primary means of measuring increased  community awareness and use of the new maps. However, FEMA has not  yet fully developed an operational definition of how it plans to measure  “awareness” or “use,” for example, that reflect mitigation steps taken or  the purchase of flood insurance. Because the link between revising maps  and the use of maps in terms of increased NFIP participation is not direct,  we recognize that it may be a challenge to develop a performance measure  that accurately reflects the impact on NFIP participation rates of efforts to  expand and improve outreach. Nonetheless, without developing such a  measure (or measures), FEMA will be less able to ensure that its map  modernization program will have resulted in one of FEMA’s primary  intended benefits.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: FEMA’s map modernization strategy recognizes the limits of the agency’s  authority to directly achieve such key intended map modernization  benefits as increased, effective flood mitigation efforts and increased flood  insurance participation rates by property owners whose properties are  within the most hazardous flood areas—those in which there is at least a   1 percent chance of flooding in any given year. At the same time, FEMA  recognizes that it has finite resources for completing map modernization  and needs to leverage its resources with assistance from state and local  communities. Both the credibility of the maps as accurate and useful and  stakeholders’ understanding of how the maps can be used to reduce flood  risk and flood damage will be instrumental in enhancing the probability  that the maps will be used to achieve their intended benefits.
FEMA’s outreach strategy for involving stakeholders in map  modernization appears to be reasonable. Even with these outreach efforts,  the credibility and likely use of the maps can be compromised if there is a  perception that similar communities are not treated similarly during map  modernization. Establishing and implementing data collection and analysis  standards for communities with similar risk can help to assure  communities that map development for all communities within the same  risk category will be consistent and comparable. Such standards can also  help FEMA to target its map modernization resources more efficiently by  matching the level of data collection and analysis with the level of flood  risk. Similarly, by developing strategies for partnering with state, and local  flood management stakeholders with lower levels of capabilities and  resources, FEMA will be better able to leverage available resources and  identify the most effective approaches to engaging its partners in the  remapping process.
To the extent that FEMA does not have appropriate numbers of staff with  the requisite skills, it may have limited ability to provide effective  monitoring and oversight of its new performance-based contract, whose  contractor has been charged with much of the day-to-day work of map  modernization that formerly FEMA performed. Finally, in some cases, the  performance measures established for the program and the contractor  may not be sufficient to permit FEMA to measure whether map  modernization is achieving its intended benefits. Without useful  operational definitions for its planned surveys to measure map acceptance  and use, FEMA cannot reasonably measure and demonstrate whether map  modernization has achieved its intended benefits in such areas as  community and individual flood mitigation efforts or increased flood  insurance purchase rates.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To help ensure that FEMA’s map modernization achieves the intended  benefits of improved flood mitigation, increased flood insurance  participation, and improved multi-hazard mitigation and risk management  capabilities through the production of more accurate and accessible flood  maps, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the  Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response to take the  following four actions:    Develop and implement data standards that will enable FEMA, its  contractor, and its state and local partners to identify and use  consistent data collection and analysis methods for communities with  similar risk.
Develop and implement strategies for partnering with state and local  entities with varying levels of capabilities and resources.
Ensure that it has the staff capacity to effectively implement the  nationwide mapping contract and the overall map modernization  program.
Develop and implement useful performance measures that define  FEMA’ s progress in increasing stakeholders’ awareness and use of the  new maps, including improved mitigation efforts and increased  participation rates in purchasing flood insurance.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for its review and comment. We  met with DHS and FEMA officials, including FEMA’s Mitigation Division  Acting Deputy Director, to discuss the report. In providing oral comments,  DHS and FEMA generally agreed with the report’s contents and provided  us with minor technical comments, which we have incorporated where  appropriate. In addition, DHS and FEMA generally agreed with our  recommendations and provided the following comments:   To address the data standard recommendation, FEMA said that it plans  to refine existing standards, in coordination with stakeholders, to  ensure consistent data collection and analysis for all communities  commensurate with their flood risk.
To address the recommendation concerning partnering strategies to  address varying levels of capabilities and resources, FEMA said that it  would continue to collaborate with stakeholder groups to develop an  effective strategy to include states and communities with varying levels  of capabilities and resources.
To address the recommendation to ensure that the agency has the staff  capacity to effectively implement map modernization and oversee the  contract, FEMA said that it has begun to take steps not only to fill   44 positions for fiscal year 2004, as noted in the report, but is also  developing a plan to ensure that additional staffing needs are met in  fiscal year 2005 and beyond.
To address the recommendation to develop and implement  performance measures for increasing stakeholders’ awareness and use  of flood maps, FEMA said that it plans to refine performance measures  for this map modernization objective to make them more useful and  quantifiable.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security.  We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or at jenkinswo@gao.gov.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To describe how map modernization is intended to improve the accuracy  and accessibility of the nation’s flood maps, we interviewed Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters officials and  agency officials in three of the regional offices: Region IV in Atlanta,  Georgia; Region VIII in Denver, Colorado; and Region VI in Denton, Texas.  To assess the reliability of FEMA’s data regarding the number and age of  the nation’s flood maps, we interviewed officials knowledgeable about the  data and the systems that produced them and determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also reviewed  key FEMA documents that describe how map modernization is intended to  use advanced technology to improve the accuracy and accessibility of  flood maps.
Realizing that map modernization is in the early stages of implementation  and information on its impact is limited, we conducted site visits in states  and communities that have already begun to modernize their flood maps.  To identify potential locations for site visits, we spoke with FEMA  Mitigation Division officials and representatives from the following  professional organizations: Association of State Flood Plain Managers,  National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies,  National Emergency Management Association, and the Mapping Coalition.  The selected site visits represent areas that have recently experienced  considerable population growth, a high National Flood Insurance Program  (NFIP) base, or a high number of repetitive flood loss claims. Over   64 percent of all NFIP policies are located in the states selected for site  visits, and over 40 percent of all repetitive loss properties are located in  the states in which we conducted site visits.
Our site visits involved reviewing key documents, graphics, and other  information related to our reporting objectives. Site visits included the  following locations:    Hillsborough, Sarasota, and Pinellas counties of Southwest Florida    Maricopa County, Arizona    State of North Carolina    Mecklenburg County, North Carolina    Harris County, Texas    State of Colorado To describe the expected benefits of map modernization, we interviewed  FEMA officials in their Mitigation Division in Washington, D.C., and  obtained documents and graphics from FEMA officials describing the  benefits the agency expects to result from map modernization activities.
We also interviewed state and local officials on the potential multi-hazard  benefits of map modernization and obtained documents and graphics  illustrating the expected benefits.
To determine the extent to which FEMA’s strategy for managing the map  modernization program supports the achievement of the expected benefits  of more accurate and accessible maps, we first reviewed previous  documents published by FEMA and others on map modernization.  Throughout our review, we remained in constant contact with FEMA  officials in their Mitigation Division to monitor the development of FEMA’s  prioritization of fiscal year 2003 funded mapping projects and the  implementation of the overall map modernization approach.
To identify areas where FEMA’s implementation of map modernization is  limited, we gathered and synthesized the experiences and challenges  identified through documentation and interviews provided from various  sources, including:    FEMA headquarters and regional officials;    site visits and selective review participants;    professionals in the Association of State Floodplain Managers, National  Association of Stormwater Management Agencies, the National  Emergency Management Agency, and Arizona Association of  Floodplain Managers; and    private industry representatives in the fields of flood zone  determinations, engineering, technology and program consulting, real  estate sales and development, and home mortgage lending.
We also conducted additional research to determine whether limitations  existed in FEMA’s implementation of its outreach approach for its map  modernization program. We obtained information on the roles and  responsibilities of FEMA and lenders to communicate changes in flood  hazard status. We also reviewed and synthesized applicable laws,  regulations, and guidance regarding notification of flood hazard risk to  identify all parties designated to inform property owners of changes in the  flood hazard maps. We interviewed FEMA mapping and insurance  officials, state, community, and National Flood Determination Association  officials as well as conducted site visits to ascertain information on  current processes for communicating changes in flood hazard status.  Additionally, we interviewed FEMA’s general counsel to obtain the  agency’s position on statutory requirements for notification of property  owners after remapping.
To further analyze the strengths and limitations of FEMA’s implementation  approach, we also reviewed FEMA’s Inspector General’s reports related to  flood mapping and reviewed our previous work and guidance in the areas  of performance-based contracting and performance measurement that  relate to the objectives of map modernization.
The information regarding deaths and damages due to floods was  considered background information and was not verified. We conducted  our review from April 2003 through March 2004 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Users of Flood Maps
paragraphs: The principal stakeholders that use FEMA flood maps and the nature of  their use are described in this appendix.
State and local floodplain managers/community planners: use flood  maps to make floodplain management decisions for each of the nearly   2 million development permits issued for new structures nearly 20,000  NFIP participating communities that have maps. They are responsible for  establishing and enforcing land-use and construction ordinances that  comply with minimum NFIP standards.
Insurance companies and agents: use flood maps to determine actuarial  rates for flood insurance policies. Private insurance companies that sell  NFIP-backed flood insurance use the flood maps to determine the proper  premium rate for a flood insurance policy. There are approximately  250,000 new policies rated and sold each year.
Lenders: use flood maps to determine the flood risk status of mortgaged  properties at loan origination and through the entire life of the mortgage.  Each of the 10 to 15 million federally related mortgage transactions each  year requires that the flood maps be consulted to determine whether the  structure secured by the loan is located in the floodplain on the current  flood map.
Flood zone determination companies: use flood maps to determine  property locations relative to flood hazard areas on behalf of mortgage  lenders that typically contract this service to companies with expertise in  making flood zone determinations and the capability to make many  determinations quickly.
Individual property owners: use flood maps to better understand their  flood risk status.
Land developers: use flood maps to assist in designing developments that  are safe from flood hazards.
Surveyors: use flood maps to prepare elevation certificates for structures.  These help owners determine their flood risk by comparing the mapped  flood elevations to the building’s lowest floor elevation.
Engineers: use flood maps when designing flood mitigation projects and  to site and design new buildings and infrastructure.
Real estate professionals: use flood maps to determine the flood risk  status of properties in the community.
State and local disaster and emergency response officials: use flood  maps to prepare for all disasters, issue hazard warnings, and implement  emergency response activities and aid in the rebuilding and reconstruction  phases.
Other federal agencies: use flood maps in implementing Executive  Order 11988, Floodplain Management, for federal actions proposed in or  affecting floodplains.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Mark Abraham, Leo Barbour, Mark  Braza, Grace Coleman, Christine Davis, Michelle Fejfar, Brian James, Kirk  Kiester, and Meg Ullengren made key contributions to the report.