HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubtask2_11_DecisionSupportTools
Subtask 2.11: Identification and
Evaluation of Online Flood
Mitigation Decision-Making
Support Tools
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality by AECOM and
ESP Associates
November 2023
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | i
Table of Contents
Definitions ...................................................................................................................... iii
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ iv
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
2 Background ................................................................................................................ 2
3 Evaluation of Example Decision Support Tools ............................................................ 3
3.1 Mecklenburg County Risk Assessment/Risk Reduction Tool (RARR) ........................................ 3
3.1.1 Tool Overview .............................................................................................................. 3
3.1.2 Database Administration ............................................................................................ 3
3.1.3 Pros, Cons, and Blueprint Recommendations ........................................................... 3
3.2 North Carolina Flood Risk Information System (FRIS) and Flood.NC.Gov ................................ 4
3.2.1 Tools Overview ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2.2 Database Administration ............................................................................................ 7
3.2.3 Pros, Cons, and Blueprint Recommendations ........................................................... 7
3.3 Massachusetts Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool ....................................................... 9
3.3.1 Massachusetts Climate Resilience Design Standards Overview ................................ 9
3.3.2 Tool Overview .............................................................................................................. 9
3.3.3 Database Administration .......................................................................................... 11
3.3.4 Pros, Cons, and Blueprint Recommendations ......................................................... 11
4 Administration of Tools ............................................................................................. 13
5 Summary .................................................................................................................. 14
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | ii
Figures
Figure 1-1: The Blueprint Decision Support Tool will leverage various datasets and analyses. ............... 1
Figure 3-1: RARR Flood Risk and Mitigation Concept.................................................................................. 2
Figure 3-2: The RARR dashboard provides building level flood risk score components. .......................... 5
Figure 3-3: The RARR dashboard provides a review and prioritization of up to 19 different
building-level flood mitigation alternatives. ........................................................................... 2
Figure 3-4: The RARR dashboard provides program management performance tracking metrics. ......... 2
Figure 3-5: FRIS displays regulatory flood hazards and probability/damage estimates. ......................... 5
Figure 3-6: The Flood.NC.Gov homepage can be used in desktop or mobile platforms to guide
users to building level flood risk, impacts and pre-evaluated mitigation alternatives. ........ 5
Figure 3-7: Example of the Flood.NC.Gov Building Level Dashboard with interactive widgets. ............... 6
Figure 3-8: Flood.NC.Gov includes building level “dashboards” for each at-risk building
including interactive widgets for impacts, mitigation and nearby gages. ............................. 6
Figure 3-9: Typical Design Process using The Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool. ..................... 11
Tables
Table 1: The Mecklenburg County RARR Flood Risk Score Components ................................................... 2
Table 2: Pros and Cons: RARR Toolset Pros and Cons ................................................................................ 3
Table 3: FRIS and Flood.NC.Gov Inputs and Downloadable Information .................................................. 4
Table 4: Pros and Cons: Flood Risk Information System and Flood.NC.Gov ............................................. 8
Table 5: Pros and Cons: MA Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool .................................................. 11
Table 6: Example Decision Support Tool Summary Evaluation. .............................................................. 14
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | iii
Definitions
A comprehensive list of definitions applicable to multiple North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
documents is provided in a separate document.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | iv
Acronyms
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management
Agency
FFE – First Floor Elevation
FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS – Flood Insurance Study Report
FRIS – (North Carolina) Flood Risk Information
System
LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging
NCDIT – North Carolina Department of
Information Technology
NCEM – North Carolina Emergency
Management
RARR – Risk Assessment/Risk Reduction Tool
(Mecklenburg County)
RMAT – Resilient Massachusetts Action Team
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 1
1 Introduction
2.11 Purpose: A primary, overarching goal of the North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint (“the
Blueprint”) is to form the backbone of a statewide flood planning process that increases community
resiliency to flooding which ultimately leads to a prioritized set of projects and funding strategies that
can be implemented by State agencies, local governments, and regional resource managers. The
Blueprint will guide these stakeholders in identifying and selecting potential flood mitigation
strategies. Phase One of the Blueprint process included stakeholder engagement, a data gap analysis,
recommendations, and the development of the Draft Blueprint guidance document. The next phase
(Phase Two) of the Blueprint will include the development of a Decision Support Tool. The Blueprint
Decision Support Tool will be a critical component of the Blueprint process allowing stakeholders to
leverage previously developed data and analysis to make informed decisions for risk evaluation and
assessment, mitigation alternative evaluation and tracking the Blueprint’s progress using objective
metrics. The datasets serving as inputs to the decision support tool and the associated outputs should
be updated periodically (recommended annually).
Figure 1-1: The Blueprint Decision Support Tool will leverage various datasets and analyses.
This document identifies and evaluate three existing online flood mitigation decision-making support
tools. This report also includes the pros, cons, and any changes recommended for incorporation to
meet the Blueprint requirements. This report discusses how databases supporting those tools are
administered and requirements of those tools including the feasibility of their deployment on North
Carolina Department of Information Technology (NCDIT) infrastructure.
Recommendations for decision-making support tools necessary as they relate to the Blueprint goals
are covered in Task 3 and Task 4 of this phase of the Blueprint.
Blueprint
Decision
Support
Tool
Flood
Hazard Data
Flood Risk /
Exposure
Mitigation
Evaluation
Prioritization
/ Ranking
Funding
Strategies
Goals /
Progress
Tracking
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 2
2 Background
Residential and commercial development along riverine and coastal waterways has always existed
and continues to increase, resulting in more risk to both people and property within urban and rural
areas. North Carolina faces many of the same problems as other coastal and riverine areas across the
country, as many find it desirable to be located near large waterbodies. 2023 research by the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Full article: Growing Safely or Building Risk?
(tandfonline.com) states for every property removed through buyouts from 1996 to 2017, more than
ten new residences were built in floodplains. This, along with an increase in severe flooding events, is
driving the need to support risk reduction, increase resilience and implement mitigation projects.
Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling accuracy and resolution, geospatial technology (GIS), building and
demographic data, and web development platforms have enabled the development of decision
support tools over the past decade. These decision support tools continue to be enhanced with
additional mapping technology and data aggregation tools to improve the evaluation of flood risk,
consequences, and mitigation alternatives in a user-friendly, mobile interface. Since 2000, the State of
North Carolina has been at the forefront of the development of these data and technologies for flood
risk communication, management and flood warning.
There are several existing decision support tools that are being used to inform decisions for flood risk
awareness and mitigation purposes. Three of these tools are evaluated herein to review pros, cons,
and changes which could be implemented to better fit with the mission of the Blueprint efforts. The
three decision support tools discussed on the following pages are:
• Mecklenburg County’s Risk Assessment/Risk Reduction Tool (RARR)
• North Carolina’s Flood Risk Information System Tool (FRIS) and Flood.NC.Gov
• Resilient Massachusetts Action Team Tool (RMAT)
Various stakeholders will use the Blueprint tool including NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services, NC
Emergency Management, NC Department of Transportation, other State and Federal agencies, grant
applicants, local planners, COG staff, local floodplain managers, local emergency managers,
conservation NGOs, property owners, private investors and academics. Various combinations of
stakeholders may ultimately gain value from using the tool (or tool extensions) for applications such
as:
• Relative and absolute risk assessment (watershed scale, jurisdictional scale, site scale)
• Mitigation planning (watershed scale, jurisdictional scale)
• Project analysis
• Policy analysis
• Project prioritization
• Analysis of cumulative future hazards
• Disaster response planning
• Comp plan development
• Zoning map development
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 3
3 Evaluation of Example Decision Support Tools
3.1 Mecklenburg County Risk Assessment/Risk Reduction Tool
(RARR)
3.1.1 Tool Overview
A general overview of the tool’s purpose, functionality, and general inputs are summarized below.
Please visit the following link for additional information:
https://www.charlottenc.gov/Services/Stormwater/Flood-Preparedness-and-Mitigation.
Mecklenburg County maintains a proactive flood mitigation program which works to reduce flood
losses through a combination of mitigation outreach, planning, and project implementation. Over the
last 15+ years, the County has invested in the preparation of updated floodplain maps and flood
mitigation plans, collection of high-resolution base mapping and building inventory data, and
development of a dense gage network and flood warning system. The County has implemented
numerous multifaceted mitigation projects which have resulted in the acquisition of over 400 flood-
prone structures, restoration of stream corridors, and development of a unique community flood
mitigation grant program (“retroFIT”). As part of a multi-year collaborative effort with the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), Mecklenburg County developed a technology framework and
sophisticated flood risk analysis tools to aid the County and all municipalities within it in addressing
flood risk. The effort includes updating and enhancing the County’s Risk Assessment/Risk Reduction
(RARR) system.
The RARR initiative is a data-driven framework with associated tools that evaluates properties in the
floodplain and prioritizes potential mitigation projects based on a multi-tier, relative scoring system.
The RARR system integrates local datasets with a geospatial toolset logic to calculate a “Flood Risk
Score” and evaluate/prioritize potential mitigation options at the building/property level. The result
of these tools and enterprise database is the RARR flood mitigation planning decision support tool.
The RARR tool integrates numerous datasets/inputs, as well as the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) hazard datasets shown below:
• Topographic Data
• Hydrographic Data
• Flood Hazard Mapping
• Community Non-Encroachment Areas
• Hydrologic & Hydraulic Modeling
• Enhanced Risk Datasets
• Historic Storm Hazard Mapping
• Buildings Footprints & Database
• Stormwater Infrastructure
• NFIP Policy Data
• Completed Flood Mitigation Projects
• Critical Facilities
• Capital Improvement Projects
• Tax Parcels
• FEMA Elevation Certificates
• Building Permit Information
• Demographic/Social Vulnerability
• Regulatory/Water Quality Buffers
• Environmental Focus Areas
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 2
Figure 3-1: RARR Flood Risk and Mitigation Concept
Figure 2Error! Reference source not found. illustrates how the RARR tool moves from multiple
inputs to structure-level risk assessment/score. The tool applies a unique and sophisticated logic
created specifically for Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services. Flood risk scores are developed
on a property-by-property basis through recognition of potential impact categories (e.g., finished
floor/living space) of the site, applying probabilities of a flood event, and including any additional risk
factors associated with the location.
Table 1: The Mecklenburg County RARR Flood Risk Score Components
Risk Score
Component
Risk
Score
“Base”
Component
Description
Flood Risk Score Component
Computation Method Details
Example Scoring
(Triggering Component
Probability x Base Score)
A 2,800 Flooding above the
lowest finished
floor (FFE) of a
building
Compare flood elevations of
seven flood events with the floor
elevation (FFE) from the
Elevation Certificate (EC); apply
the weight of the flood event for
the flood elevations exceeding
FFE to the base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
B 1,200 Flooding of
electrical and/or
mechanical
equipment
Compare flood elevations of
seven flood events with the
Lowest Mechanical Elevation
(LME) from the EC; apply the
weight of the flood event for the
flood elevation exceeding LME to
the base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 3
Risk Score
Component
Risk
Score
“Base”
Component
Description
Flood Risk Score Component
Computation Method Details
Example Scoring
(Triggering Component
Probability x Base Score)
C 1,000 Flood water is
touching a portion
of the building
(accessibility is
limited during
flooding)
Compare flood elevations of
seven flood events with the
Lowest Adjacent Grade (LAG)
from the elevation certificates.
Apply the weight of the flood
event for the flood elevations
exceeding LME to the base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
D 1,100 Property is
completely
surrounded by
flood water (may be
inaccessible during
flooding)
Compare parcels with each
floodplain mapping layer to
determine which events
surround the parcels and apply
the weight for the event to the
base score. Use the larger flood
event returned by Component D
and E.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
E 500 Structure is
completely
surrounded by
flood water (may be
inaccessible during
flooding)
Using the primary building
location; spatially intersect with
each floodplain mapping layer
to find the event that surrounds
the building; apply the weight
for the event to the base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
F 2,700 Structure is
completely
surrounded by
flood water and is a
critical facility (may
be inaccessible
during flooding)
If structure is completely
surrounded by water, spatially
intersect point feature class of
critical facilities (CF) with parcel
shape, and test if CF point lies
within the building; apply the
weight for the triggering event to
the base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
G N/A Structure is
completely
surrounded by
flood water and is
multi-family
residential
If structure is completely
surrounded by water, check for
multi-family residential types;
apply the weight for the event to
the base score.
0.5 * Component B Score
+ Component E Score
H N/A Number of units in
multi-family
residential building
completely
surrounded by
flood water
If multi-family residential is
completely surrounded by
water, check for number of units
in parcel database. Category H
score = G Score * (units – 1).
Parcel contains number of units
for apartments.
Component G Score *
[Parcel Units] – 1
I 2,000 Flood water
touching building
with structural
Compare flood elevations of 7
flood events with the LAG from
the EC; apply the weight of the
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 4
Risk Score
Component
Risk
Score
“Base”
Component
Description
Flood Risk Score Component
Computation Method Details
Example Scoring
(Triggering Component
Probability x Base Score)
damage as a result
of hydrostatic
pressure of water
with depth of 3ft+
flood event for the flood
elevation exceeding LAG + 3ft to
the base score.
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
J 600 Flooding of
SIGNIFICANT
exterior property
improvements on
single- family
residential
properties
Check if parcel shape spatially
contains any points for
significant property
improvements; for each
significant point found, check if
it is contained within each
floodplain mapping layer; apply
the weight for the event to the
base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
K 300 Flooding of
MODERATE exterior
property
improvements on
single- family
residential
properties
Check if parcel shape spatially
contains one or more moderate
improvements; for each
moderate point found, check if
contained within each floodplain
mapping layer; apply the weight
for the event to the base score. If
multiple points are found, use
the flood of greatest magnitude.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
L 600 Flooding around
area where single-
family residential
vehicles are
typically parked
Check if parcel shape spatially
contains any points for parking
locations. For each point found,
check if contained within each
floodplain mapping layer; apply
the weight for the event to the
base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
M 30 Flooding impacting
any portion of the
parcel/yard
Spatially intersect the parcel
with each floodplain mapping
layer; apply the weight for the
event to the base score.
2-yr: 0.5 *(base score)
5-yr: 0.2 *(base score)
10-yr: 0.1 *(base score)
25-yr: 0.04 *(base score)
50-yr: 0.02 *(base score)
100-yr: 0.01 *(base score)
500-yr: .002 *(base score)
Total Risk Score (Numeric Value)
(Updated Quarterly)
Sum of the Applicable
Component
Calculations Above
Next, potential mitigation techniques are evaluated at the building and property levels using a
particular parcel’s risk scores. Based upon the criteria encoded in the tool logic, each of the mitigation
techniques are assessed for viability, estimated project cost, benefit-cost ratio, property location, and
social vulnerability (if data is available). Final mitigation recommendations are sorted and prioritized
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 5
taking into account community values (expanding the greenway system, improving water quality,
etc.) to create a clear course of action for Mecklenburg County and the property owners to potentially
pursue for flood risk reduction. A series of 19 mitigation techniques are evaluated for each property
include the following:
1. Property Acquisition
2. Structure Demolition and Rebuild
3. Property Acquisition/Structure
Relocation
4. Property Acquisition, Demolition, or
Relocation, and Re-sale
5. Structure Elevation
6. Abandon Basement and Fill
7. Dry Floodproofing of Structures
8. Wet Floodproofing of Structures
9. Audible Flood Warning System for
Individual Property
10. Storm Water Detention Facilities
11. Storm Water System Control
12. Automated Flood Notifications
13. Public Education
14. Flood Insurance
15. Levee/Floodwall Protection for
Multiple Structures
16. Protecting Service Equipment
17. Partial Dry Floodproofing
18. Partial Wet Floodproofing
19. Levee/Wall/Berm for a Single Structure
The system also includes a web-based decision tool for viewing and filtering the flood risk data (scores
and mitigation evaluations) in a user-friendly map and dashboard interface. Users can filter the map
and dashboard views by watershed, municipality, or a user-specified extent. The tool’s dashboards
dynamically update for the selected geographic area or what is visible on the current map view.
Figure 3-2: The RARR dashboard provides building level flood risk score components.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 2
Figure 3-3: The RARR dashboard provides a review and prioritization of up to 19 different building-level flood
mitigation alternatives.
Figure 3-4: The RARR dashboard provides program management performance tracking metrics.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 3
3.1.2 Database Administration
The core infrastructure of the tool's enterprise geodatabase resides securely on Mecklenburg County's
on-premises servers, managed by the Information Technology Services team. Administration is
performed through ArcGIS Server and Microsoft SQL Server 2016, which also provide the data access
layer for the web interface to query and retrieve spatial data. Data updates to calculations of losses
avoided, damage estimates, and current conditions are accomplished by a collection of
geoprocessing scripts, scheduled to run by the Windows Task Scheduler. Updates to static data such
as FEMA maps, county risk assessments, mitigation, building footprints, and insurance certificates are
performed ad-hoc with ArcToolbox scripts.
3.1.3 Pros, Cons, and Blueprint Recommendations
Table 2 describes the pros and cons of the RARR toolset relative to the Blueprint effort.
Table 2: Pros and Cons: RARR Toolset Pros and Cons
Pros • Evaluates and assigns a risk score to all flood-prone buildings within the County.
• Evaluates 19 potential mitigation techniques at each flood-prone building.
• Determines the most viable mitigation action at each flood-prone building.
• Geoprocessing toolsets allow for easy data maintenance.
Cons • Only available for Mecklenburg County.
• The tool only considers building level flood mitigation alternatives.
• Flood-prone as defined by the tool includes buildings identified through FEMA
regulatory study results.
• Not publicly available. Cannot be leveraged directly.
• Does not include coastal factors in risk scoring or mitigation evaluations (currently
specific to piedmont region).
• Relies on data/datasets (foundation type, first floor elevation, parking points) that do
not exist statewide.
• Would require ongoing maintenance/updates for supporting datasets. This may be
difficult to keep up with at the statewide building level.
• Does not consider future climate.
Recommended
Blueprint
Features
• The Blueprint Decision Support Tool should expand on the RARR concepts to include
regional detention and nature-based mitigation actions and the associated
aggregated benefits.
• As this tool is not available publicly, it can only serve as a model for the Blueprint.
Care should be taken to ensure the Blueprint Decision Support Tool can be used
equally well in data-rich and data-poor areas.
• Develop standardized methods for quantifying flood risk/impact category scores
across NC basins, with supplemental factors added for different regions .
• Incorporate a wide range of accepted mitigation options to fit many contexts .
• Recommendations of mitigation techniques to deploy take into account locally
defined community values, such as expanding the greenway system, improving water
quality, etc.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 4
3.2 North Carolina Flood Risk Information System (FRIS) and
Flood.NC.Gov
3.2.1 Tools Overview
A general overview of the tool’s purpose, functionality, and general inputs are summarized below.
Please visit the following links for additional information:
• FRIS: Flood Risk Information System
• Flood.NC.Gov: Flood.nc.gov – North Carolina’s Flood Information Dashboard
FRIS: The State of North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program provides the FRIS website for citizens
of North Carolina as a public service. FRIS contains risk assessments that are database-driven, as well
as digitally accessible flood hazard data, maps, and reports. Along with providing geospatial base map
data, imagery, and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data, the site also provides hydrologic and
hydraulic models that are available for download, as well as FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports.
Users can quickly plug in an address, city, ZIP code, or county into the system to (1) view general flood
zone and property information, (2) evaluate property-specific flood risk, (3) explore risk reduction
strategies and (4) access FIS reports, stream engineering models, and export relevant map data. FRIS
inputs can be found in Table 3, and an example of FRIS Flood Risk Information is shown in Figure 3-5.
While values are automatically populated within the Flood Risk Information dropdown, the site also
allows for users to revise certain information, either to reflect more accurately known conditions or
perform sensitivity tests. The Flood Risk Information tab also provides users with various risk
reduction (mitigation) options and estimated costs for those options.
Table 3: FRIS and Flood.NC.Gov Inputs and Downloadable Information
Inputs Downloadable Information
• Buildings (polygon) attributed with elevation
information, occupancy type, foundation type,
etc.
• FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) database
(floodplains, streams, FIRM panels, etc.)
• FEMA Depth Damage Curves (table)
• Addresses (points)
• Multi-Return water surface elevations (raster)
• Flood probability datasets (raster)
• Stream/Flood Warning Gages
• Parcels (polygon)
• Mitigation Alternatives Database
• Effective Hydraulic Models
• Supporting GIS Datasets
• LIDAR topographic datasets
• Regulatory Flood Insurance Reports
• Site Specific FEMA Digital Flood Insurance
Rate Maps
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 5
Figure 3-5: FRIS displays regulatory flood hazards and probability/damage estimates.
Flood.NC.Gov: As a companion Decision Support Tool to the FRIS application, the State of North
Carolina developed the Flood.NC.Gov flood risk communication portal for non-regulatory and
mitigation purposes. The Flood.NC.Gov portal includes a more user-friendly interface to display flood
risk information to the public and stakeholders. The information can be accessed via a home page by
property address or navigating and exploring a statewide map.
Figure 3-6: The Flood.NC.Gov homepage can be used in desktop or mobile platforms to guide users to building level
flood risk, impacts and pre-evaluated mitigation alternatives.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 6
An example of the decision support tool functionality of the Flood.NC.gov tool is the building level
dashboard developed for each at risk building. This dashboard leverages the State’s enterprise flood
hazard and risk geodatabases to display this data in a responsive easy to understand format.
Figure 3-7: Example of the Flood.NC.Gov Building Level Dashboard with interactive widgets.
Figure 3-8: Flood.NC.Gov includes building level “dashboards” for each at-risk building including interactive
widgets for impacts, mitigation and nearby gages.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 7
The NC.Flood.Gov decision support tool offers a dashboard for at-risk properties in the state. For each
selected property, the dashboard displays four (4) informational widgets that offer interactive data
windows. These widgets are summarized below:
• HAZARD: The Hazard widget shows the current FEMA flood zone that the property is inside
and includes information about the regulatory (1% annual chance) base flood elevation, the
annual exceedance probability, and the likelihood of flooding over the next 30 years. This
widget also allows interactive download of the official FEMA flood insurance rate map (DFIRM)
from the enterprise database.
• IMPACT: The Flood Impact widget displays an interactive graphic showing the current flood
depth above the finished flood elevation of the building. This interactive graphic can be
adjusted to show how structural and contents damage vary based on flood depth and building
properties (e.g., foundation, number of stories, replacement values, etc.)
• MITIGATION: The Flood Mitigation widget displays up to seven building-specific flood
mitigation measures. These mitigation measures have been pre-analyzed for cost
effectiveness based on building characteristics and flood hazards.
• MONITOR: The Monitor Widget leverages the State of North Carolina Flood Inundation
Mapping and Alert (FIMAN) System databases to search within a variable radius of the selected
building and will redirect the user to the FIMAN website where users can register to receive
alerts when existing or forecasted conditions indicate flooding conditions.
3.2.2 Database Administration
The enterprise geodatabases for FRIS and Flood.NC.Gov are hosted on-premises by North Carolina
Emergency Management (NCEM). The underlying map services are hosted by NCEM and then utilized
by both tools to query and display data. ArcGIS Server plays a pivotal role in managing and optimizing
this geospatial ecosystem, ensuring a seamless, real-time data querying and visualization experience
for users. An ASP.NET API provides the interactive web pages used to connect and interact with the
database. A data repository is available to retrieve various datasets such as LiDAR, FEMA maps, LiDAR
topographic data, and engineering models from the database.
3.2.3 Pros, Cons, and Blueprint Recommendations
Table 4 summarizes the pros and cons of the Flood Risk Information System and Flood.NC.Gov
relative to the Blueprint effort.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 8
Table 4: Pros and Cons: Flood Risk Information System and Flood.NC.Gov
Pros • Mobile friendly environment (Flood.NC.Gov).
• Datasets access federated, enterprise databases that are continually updated for
consistency.
• Evaluates risk at the building level.
• Communicates Flood Probability with not only the annual exceedance probability but
the probability of flood impacts occurring over the next 15 and 30 years.
• Allows users to override defaults with better/different information (e.g., building
value, stories, square feet, foundation, occupancy).
• Provides estimated damages (structural and contents).
• Provides risk reduction options and estimated costs and cost effectiveness.
• Communicates up to seven building level mitigation alternatives (elevation, flood
proofing, acquisition, etc.) with pre-analyzed cost effectiveness.
• Provides links to nearby flood monitoring, warning and alert sensors (gages)
leveraging the State’s Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network (FIMAN).
Cons • The systems do not fully consider the full spectrum of quantifying flood risks
including social vulnerability, pluvial flooding, flood velocity, vehicle damage, ingress
and egress issues, emergency response, or environmental impacts.
• The system does not allow for “batch” evaluation of buildings and results can only be
assessed one building at a time.
• The system only considers building asset impacts and does not consider other
infrastructure and environmental aspects.
• The system does not include social vulnerability datasets or considerations.
• Unable to revise first floor elevation (FFE) (can calculate assumed FFE based on Depth
Above Finished Floor in Flood Risk Information tab and Flood Elevations in Flood
Information tab).
• The sites do not evaluate nature-based mitigation alternatives.
• The sites do not evaluate regional/detention flood mitigation alternatives.
• The building stock datasets and replacement value attributed need update and
maintenance.
• Static models contain fixed results.
• The modeling only considers future conditions for a small subset of the State and
does not consider climate change or sea level rise.
Recommended
Blueprint
Features
• The Blueprint Decision Support Tool should allow for user overrides of certain default
values in the Blueprint database when evaluating mitigation alternatives or as part of
the prioritization modules (similarly to FRIS and Flood.NC.Gov).
• The Blueprint should continue to build from the foundational data included in these
decision support tools leveraging databases and maintenance as much as possible.
• The Blueprint should explore the concept of a multi-variable flood risk “score” tied to
flood probability, impacts, social vulnerability and other factors.
• The Blueprint Decision Support Tool should evaluate nature-based and regional
detention mitigation alternatives and the aggregated costs and associated benefits
(e.g., losses avoided, cumulative flood risk score reduction, etc.).
• The Blueprint should leverage updated 2-dimensional hydrologic and hydraulic
modeling including fluvial, pluvial and future conditions modeling statewide for use
in the tool.
• Built-in flexibility for tool inputs in case values change over time.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 9
3.3 Massachusetts Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool
3.3.1 Massachusetts Climate Resilience Design Standards Overview
In 2019, the Resilient Massachusetts Action Team (RMAT) was officially launched. This group is
responsible for implementation, monitoring, and maintenance of the Massachusetts Climate
Resilience Design Standards Tool. The RMAT is tasked with monitoring and tracking the 2018 State
Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan (SHMCAP) implementation process; making
recommendations; and supporting agencies on plan updates, and facilitating coordination across
State government and with stakeholders, including businesses, cities, and towns.
The focus of the Climate Resilience Design Standards Guidance project is to integrate best available
statewide climate change projections and hazards data to inform early/conceptual planning and
design of infrastructure, buildings, and natural resource assets in Massachusetts in conjunction with
traditional engineering assessments, feasibility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses.
More information on the standards and guidance for the creation of the tool can be found at the
following locations:
o Introduction: https://eea-nescaum-dataservices-assets-
prd.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/GUIDELINES/V1.2_SECTION_1.pdf,
o Project Inputs: https://eea-nescaum-dataservices-assets-
prd.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/GUIDELINES/V1.2_SECTION_2.pdf,
o Preliminary Climate Risk Screening: https://eea-nescaum-dataservices-assets-
prd.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/GUIDELINES/V1.2_SECTION_3.pdf,
o Climate Resilience Design Standards: https://eea-nescaum-dataservices-assets-
prd.s3.amazonaws.com/cms/GUIDELINES/V1.2_SECTION_4.pdf
3.3.2 Tool Overview
A general overview of the tool’s purpose, functionality, and general inputs are summarized below.
Please visit the following link for additional information:
https://resilient.mass.gov/rmat_home/designstandards/.
In July 2022, the RMAT introduced the Climate Resilience Design Guidance, a downloadable document
outlining best practices, forms, and recommended climate resilience design standards for state
agencies’ capital planning process and grant applications. In addition, the team developed a Climate
Resilience Design Standards Tool (“the Tool”), which is an interactive web-tool that provides a
preliminary climate risk screening and recommended climate resilience design standards for projects
with physical assets. It is also a dynamic resource in which new iterations are released as updated
datasets or climate models become available.
The Tool uses the best available data available at the time of the latest update and is subject to
revision as more detailed data, new science or new climate models become available. Although the
Tool does not specify the projects that can be evaluated, it is not recommended for the following
project types: projects with no physical assets or location, projects without discrete locations (e.g.,
Statewide or regional), projects outside of Massachusetts, or demolition projects.
The Tool is available to the public, and anyone with a valid email address can create an account. The
overall tool workflow progresses as follows: (1) Start Here page, (2) Locate Project page, (3) Project
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 10
Inputs page (4), Project Output page, (5) View Report page, and (6) Submit Project page. The Start
Here page provides a comprehensive overview of the Tool and its associated resources. The Locate
Project page leverages GIS applications to mark the appropriate position of a project. Completing a
series of questions found on the Project Inputs page then feeds into the Project Outputs page, where
relevant scores and ratings are connected to different climate resilience indicators as described in the
paragraph below. The View Report page summarizes the information collected up to this point for any
downloading needs. Finally, the Submit Report page solidifies the project details within the system for
administrators to see and becomes part of the official public record.
Based on user-provided information, the Tool will provide Project Outputs including evaluation of
whether the project is within a mapped Environmental Justice population; Ecosystem Service
Benefits and Preliminary Climate Exposure Scores; Preliminary Climate Risk Ratings; and
recommended Climate Resilience Design Standards. The Tool is considered supplementary to the
Climate Resilience Standards & Guidance document, and it is intended that the users of the Tool will
apply the Project Outputs to inform, develop, support, and consult on project planning and early
design. The Project Outputs are summarized in a downloadable report through the Tool that can be
attached to Requests for Proposals, basis of design reports, and/or grant or permitting applications. It
is assumed that much of the needed information will be provided by the user. The level of needed
data is specific to the area chosen and characteristics of the geographic area. A graphic of the typical
design process using The Tool is seen in Figure 3-9.
RMAT Tool User inputs include:
• Project Name
• Project location and extents (drawn as a polygon within The Tool with option to supplement
with GIS Parcel boundaries)
• Core Project Information (estimated capital costs, contact info, grant related application, etc.)
• Project Ecosystem Benefits (questions about storm damage reduction, green infrastructure,
water quality, etc.)
• Project Exposure (questions about flooding history, impervious area, etc.)
• Project Assets (type/number of assets, construction start, useful life, etc.)
• Project Asset Criticality (time asset can be inaccessible, scope, severity, etc.)
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 11
Figure 3-9: Typical Design Process using The Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool.
3.3.3 Database Administration
The enterprise geodatabase for the RMAT tool is administered through Esri’s ArcGIS software suite
and Microsoft’s SQL Server. Through ArcGIS server, a REST application programming interface (API) is
configured to allow the web interface to query, filter, and view the spatial and geographic data stored
within the geodatabase. Any non-spatial data that is saved and retrieved through the web interface is
accessed via a secure ASP.NET API using an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) driver to execute
stored procedures and query records. Maps and data for this viewer is held in “ResilientMass”. This
tool is created by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to support
the Commonwealth with climate change science and tools.
3.3.4 Pros, Cons, and Blueprint Recommendations
Table 5 describe potential pros and cons of the identified toolsets relative to the Blueprint effort.
Table 5: Pros and Cons: MA Climate Resilience Design Standards Tool
Pros • Provides preliminary climate resilience analysis, including flexible adaptive
pathways.
• Provides recommendations based on current climate data.
• Informs climate-resistant capital planning.
• Provides uniform and automated support for evaluation and grant
applications.
• Supported by robust guidance, methodology documents, best practices, and
training resources including videos.
• Considers environmental justice (EJ) and ecosystem benefits within the
Overall Project Scores Output. This is demonstrated by whether or not the
project polygon is located within a mapped EJ population and by generating
ecosystem benefits score for the project.
• Significant feedback effort completed for the launch of the beta tool,
including 13 focus groups, a public feedback survey, and agency feedback.
Feedback was synthesized and organized by priority. Incorporated changes
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 12
informed by stakeholder feedback are identified in the Climate Resilience
Design Standards and Guidance – Overview.
• Free and publicly available.
Cons • Not recommended for projects with no physical assets or location.
• Not recommended for demolition projects.
• Specific to Massachusetts coast and not recommended for projects outside
of state/region.
• Tool would need to be re-created/made compatible with North Carolina
design standards.
• Support datasets specific to North Carolina would need to be created/used
(water surface elevation, wave action, sea level rise, storm surge, etc.).
• Designed with the goal of “implementing priority actions” from
Massachusetts’ State Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan (2018);
state agency, local government, and other stakeholder use of the tool is
noted but secondary.
Recommended
Blueprint Features
• Develop best practices, guidance, and training videos to accompany the
launch of the Blueprint Decision Support Tool to aid stakeholder use and
implementation of the Blueprint.
• Incorporate EJ and ecosystem benefits considerations within the Blueprint
Decision Support Tool.
• The Blueprint will be designed to input existing state, regional, and local
actions in addition to new actions formed by local governments and basin-
wide groups and for use by wider stakeholder group (not just state hazard
mitigation plan implementation).
• Conduct a similarly robust engagement and feedback effort for the beta
launch of the Blueprint Decision Support Tool among state agencies, TAGs,
and the public to promote transparency and continuous improvement of the
Tool.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 13
4 Administration of Tools
Apart from the basic tools, most of these tools have complex systems supporting the data being
generated. To support the rapid dissemination and distribution of data required to make the
Blueprint project accessible across the state, an evaluation of software and hardware requirements
will be needed. To ensure the accuracy and currency of the data that powers these tools, updates are
typically managed through a combination of manual interventions and the deployment of automated
scripts. An important aspect of this is adequate staffing to support data maintenance/updates and
regular funding to support data collection.
Best practices include:
• Updating the ArcGIS Server and SQL Server regularly to enhance security, performance, and
ensure combability with newer technologies.
• Logging on any infrastructure hosted on Microsoft Azure to collect and organize performance
data to assist in the monitoring of the performance and availability of the tools, their
databases, and their supporting components.
• Scheduling a regular database backup to maintain data continuity and prevent disruption of
services.
• Optimizing and streamlining the update process to establish a well-defined framework for
data management and implement best practices.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 14
5 Summary
The table below summarizes the key features of the example decision support tools reviewed.
Table 6: Example Decision Support Tool Summary Evaluation.
Mecklenburg County
RARR
NC FRIS and Flood.NC.Gov Massachusetts
Climate Resilience
Design Standards Tool
Pros • Provides a multi-
component flood risk
score to all flood prone
buildings.
• Evaluates and
prioritizes 19 potential
mitigation building
specific techniques.
• Geoprocessing tools
allow for easy data
maintenance.
• Dashboard for program
performance metrics.
• Mobile friendly environment.
• Federated datasets.
• Risk at the building level.
• Communicates current Flood
Probability and over the next
15 and 30 years.
• User specific data overrides.
• Provides estimated damages.
• Provides risk reduction
options, estimated costs and
benefits.
• Communicates up to seven
building level mitigation
alternatives.
• Provides links to nearby flood
warning sites.
• incorporates latest
climate data to generate
climate resilience
analyses and flexible
adaptive pathways.
• Incorporates
environmental justice
and ecosystem benefit
considerations.
• Robust training and
guidance materials
accompany the Tool.
• Free and publicly
available.
Cons • Only considers building
level alternatives for
buildings within the
FEMA SFHA.
• Not available to the
public.
• Relies on robust local
datasets that do not
exist statewide.
• Extensive data
maintenance required.
• No future conditions.
• Social vulnerability, pluvial
flooding, emergency
response, environmental
impacts and other factors not
considered.
• The system does not allow for
“batch” evaluations.
• The system only considers
building asset impacts.
• The sites do not evaluate
nature-based mitigation
alternatives.
• The sites do not evaluate
regional/detention flood
mitigation alternatives.
• The building stock datasets
require significant
• Not recommended for
projects with no
physical assets or
location.
• Not recommended for
projects without
discrete locations (e.g.,
statewide/regionwide)
• MA specific design.
Support datasets for NC
would need to be
created/used.
North Carolina Flood Resiliency Blueprint
Subtask 2.11: Identification and Evaluation of Online Flood Mitigation Decision-Making Support Tools | 15
maintenance (spatial and
tabular).
• Models are static.
• No statewide future
conditions or climate change
considerations.
Blueprint
Considerations
• Expand on the RARR
concepts to include
regional detention and
nature-based mitigation
actions.
• Scale the RARR
concepts for
incorporation in
underserved
communities.
• Standardize methods
for quantifying flood
risk/impact category
scores statewide.
• Incorporate a wide
range of accepted
mitigation options to fit
many contexts.
• Incorporate locally
defined community
values in the
prioritization.
• Build on system to allow for
user overrides of certain
default values in the
blueprint database when
evaluating mitigation
alternatives.
• Build from the foundational
data and scale down for
statewide implementation.
• Explore the concept of a
multi-variable flood risk
“score” including flood
probability, impacts, social
vulnerability, etc.
• Evaluate nature-based and
regional detention mitigation
alternatives and the
aggregated costs and
associated benefits.
• Leverage updated 2-
dimensional modeling
including fluvial, pluvial and
future conditions.
• Develop best practices,
guidance, and training
videos to accompany
the launch of the
Blueprint Decision
Support Tool to aid
stakeholder use and
implementation of the
Blueprint.
• Incorporate EJ and
ecosystem benefits
considerations.
• The Blueprint will be
designed to input
existing state, regional,
and local actions in
addition to new actions
formed by local
governments and basin-
wide groups and for use
by wider stakeholder
group (not just state
hazard mitigation plan
implementation.)
• Conduct a similarly
robust engagement and
feedback effort for the
beta launch of the
Blueprint Decision
Support Tool among
state agencies, TAGs,
and the public to
promote transparency
and continuous
improvement of the
Tool.