Navigate Up
Sign In
User Login


Terrain Modeling in FEMA’s California Coastal Flood Studies
Jeremy Mull, BakerAECOM

FEMA coastal flood studies are large undertakings that often take advantage of a variety of accurate, high resolution data to analyze coastal vulnerability.  The 1% annual chance flood event for each community is determined with a combination of data including waves, tides, and bathymetry and topography.  A critical step in each study is the development of a terrain model, in which different survey datasets are combined into an accurate terrain surface that is used for coastal analyses.  Just as numerical models use source input data such as wave and wind data from offshore buoys to predict nearshore waves, terrain models incorporate source bathymetric and topographic data to approximate the geomorphology of the coastline.  Accurate terrain modeling is essential for a successful flood study and this article briefly describes some of the steps and challenges in this process. The figure below shows the general technical steps in a coastal flood study.

terrain photo 1.JPG

The California Coastal Analysis and Mapping Project/Open Pacific Coast (CCAMP/OPC) Study is utilizing a combination of source terrain datasets developed by various agencies at different resolutions.  The resolution of a particular dataset refers to the density of elevation points captured in the survey.  Higher resolution surveys have more data points per area, or smaller point spacing between each data point, and allow analysts to capture and analyze critical features.  Data used in the CCAMP/OPC Study include high resolution airborne topographic LiDAR data (1 meter point spacing), high resolution hydrographic survey data (2 meter point spacing), and moderate resolution bathymetric Digital Elevation Models (DEM; 10 to 100 meter point spacing).  Combining these datasets with different resolutions and accuracies into one surface presents unique technical challenges.  To build the foundation of the terrain for a particular area, engineers first develop a data hierarchy to prioritize the data from highest to lowest accuracy and resolution.  Each area is first filled with the highest quality data available and then gaps are subsequently filled with the next sequential dataset in the hierarchy.  In the CCAMP/OPC Study, all areas were first populated with the relatively accurate and recently collected LiDAR data and then the remaining bathymetric voids were filled with available hydrographic survey data.  An example of a merged bathymetric and topographic terrain surface for Santa Cruz County is shown in the figure below.

The timing of each survey can also impact how each terrain is modeled.  Because coastal flood studies typically cover large geographic regions, surveys are often conducted at different times depending on weather conditions, accessibility, funding, and other factors.  For example, LiDAR data for the CCAMP/OPC Study were collected in 2011, while nearshore hydrographic survey data were collected between 2004 and 2011 and offshore hydrographic survey data date back to 1920 in some areas.  Many beaches on the west coast are dynamic and can change seasonally so that combining data collected at different times can create data mismatches, or “seams”, at the edges of each source dataset.  These seams can be problematic since the equations used to model coastal flood processes such as wave runup, overtopping, and erosion are sensitive to the slopes and inflection points of beaches, bluffs, and structures.  If left in the terrain surface, seams can create erroneous slopes and artificial inflection points.  To address this issue and eliminate seams in the terrain surfaces created for the CCAMP/OPC Study, terrain analysts employed several techniques. For example, an analyst can shift the data merge location to an area where the source data match.  If that is not possible, the modeled surface can be interpolated across the seam.  Both techniques have been employed in the CCAMP/OPC Study to eliminate seams and avoid using older hydrographic survey data in the critical nearshore region.

Occasionally, the elevation data needed for a particular analysis are simply not in the data.  Airborne topographic LiDAR data is typically classified into two categories: (1) unclassified and (2) bare-earth.  Unclassified data include vegetation, buildings, and other structures while bare-earth data approximates the true ground surface.  Elevation points of coastal protection structures are critical to flooding analysis; however, since these points are often “unclassified”, they may not be represented in a terrain surface created from bare-earth data alone.  To obtain these elevation points for the CCAMP/OPC Study, FEMA reviewed the unclassified LiDAR data and identified coastal structures so they could be incorporated into the terrain models.  This procedure worked well for many larger structures that were adequately captured by the LiDAR survey; however, some narrower structures, particularly seawalls, were not captured fully in the survey.  Even well-designed seawalls are typically not wide enough to be fully resolved by LiDAR data with 1 meter spacing.  To obtain the correct dimensions (for example, crest elevation and width), engineers relied on field observations, aerial photographs, construction documents, and the limited coastal structure returns in the unclassified LiDAR data.  Using these sources in combination with the bare-earth data allowed engineers to accurately represent the dimensions of each structure for input to subsequent wave runup and overtopping analyses.

These are some of the challenges and complexities in terrain modeling for a FEMA coastal flood study. Like nearshore wave and water level modeling, terrain modeling is a key component to the study and accurate modeling is essential for quality flood elevation predictions.


 Coastal Beat Story Archive

collapse Year : 2012 ‎(7)
<a href=''>Risk Map Local</a>
<a href=''>FEMA Leverages LiDAR</a>
<a href=''>FEMA’s CCAMP Studies and Our Coast, Our Future</a>
<a href=''>Region IX to Conduct First Flood Risk Review Meeting for CCAMP</a>
collapse Year : 2013 ‎(19)
<a href=''>FEMA Partners with Oceanweather and Scripps Institution of Oceanography to Bring Modeling Expertise to CCAMP OPC Study</a>
<a href=''>FEMA Region IX Holds Meetings for the California Coastal Analysis and Mapping Project / Open Pacific Coast Study</a>
<a href=''>Primary Frontal Dune Coastal High Hazard Area Mapping Requirements</a>
<a href=''>FEMA Holds South Bay Workshop to Kick-off Detailed Analysis in the South Bay Counties</a>
<a href=''>Translating Coastal Flood Hazard Modeling Results into Floodplain Mapping</a>
<a href=''>Terrain Modeling in FEMA’s California Coastal Flood Studies</a>
<a href=''>Join FEMA’s Community Rating System Program Using California’s Statewide Floodplain Management Activities</a>
<a href=''>Coastal Flood Processes Along the California Coast</a>
<a href=''>FEMA’s Annual Risk Awareness Survey: Findings from Previous Surveys and the Focus for the 2013 Survey</a>
collapse Year : 2014 ‎(9)
<a href=''>E386 Residential Coastal Construction</a>
<a href=''>Engaging Stakeholders to Help Communicate Impacts of BW-12</a>
<a href=''></a>
<a href=''>California Coastal Storm History Part Two – Ventura County</a>
<a href=''>Redelineation: What does it mean for me?</a>
collapse Year : 2015 ‎(2)
<a href=''>FEMA increases community access to draft floodplain mapping data </a>
collapse Year : 2016 ‎(6)
<a href=''></a>
1 - 40Next

 Other Stories

expand Arizona
Educating Maricopa County on the Power of Water,
Discovery Process, Thursday, February 23, 2012
expand California
Discovery Process, Thursday, March 1, 2012
NFIP Substantial Improvement and Substantial Damage Course, Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Santa Barbara County and Incorporated Areas Countywide Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Join FEMA’s Community Rating System Program Using California’s Statewide Floodplain Management Activities,
expand Coastal Studies
Discovery Process, Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Betty the Prepared Dog, Saturday, April 28, 2012
expand Hawaii
Tsunami: Learning from Experience in Hawaii,
Public Outreach Meeting for FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Wednesday, August 8, 2012
expand Nevada
Clark County Flood Facts,
expand Region Wide
Be Prepared for a Flooding Event in your Community Today!,
Watershed University , Friday, June 1, 2012
Know Your Line: Be Flood Aware, Thursday, May 2, 2013
1 - 30 Next
  • The Summary of Map Actions (SOMA) Report: SOMAs Deciphered

    Many community officials and floodplain managers are called upon to review a Summary of Map Actions (SOMA) report, but how familiar are you with this document, and the process of developing it? Did you know that the ability to revise or amend effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels is always available? Revisions and amendments to flood hazard information may be accomplished through FEMA’s Letter of Map Change (LOMC) process, without having to re-publish the FIRM. When a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) update or restudy requires a revised FIRM panel to be re-published, the existing LOMCs that applied to the old effective FIRM panels are superseded by the newly effective FIRM panels, and LOMCs that have remained valid are revalidated. As part of a map revision, FEMA publishes a Preliminary and Final SOMA report. The SOMA records a complete list of all previously issued LOMCs, and their valid or superseded status, for each community affected by revised FIRM panels. The SOMA assists community officials in maintaining the most up-to-date information on their community’s FIRMs. (Read more…)

  • Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Insurance Studies: From Preliminary to Effective

    ​FEMA flood hazard maps inform communities about the local flood risk. Flood hazard mapping is an important part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), as FEMA regulatory products provide the basis for regulating development and determining flood insurance requirements under the NFIP regulations. FEMA maintains and updates regulatory flood hazard data through Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports.

    Following the data acquisition and data development phases of the flood insurance study process, FEMA distributes one set of the preliminary FIRM panels, the preliminary FIS Report, and the preliminary Summary of Map Actions (SOMA) to community CEOs. FEMA also posts PDF versions of the preliminary FIRM panels and FIS Report, as well as the DFIRM database containing the GIS shapefiles, to the Map Service Center (MSC), where they are available for public download. (The preliminary FIRM panels and the preliminary DFIRM database are archived on the MSC when the panels, FIS report, and database become effective.) The steps that follow, referred to as the post-preliminary process, include the public comment and appeal period, community and public meetings, the Letter of Final Determination, and community adoption/compliance requirements. 
    From July 2015 through November 2015, FEMA distributed preliminary data to ten coastal counties as part of the Open Pacific Coast Study and three counties as part of the San Francisco Bay Area Coastal Study. For more information about what goes into a flood map, go to this infographic on FEMA’s website. (Read more…)

View RSS feed

Powered by BakerAECOM