Destructive Water: Water-Caused Natural Disasters, their Abatement and Control (Proceedings of the

Conference held at Anaheim, California, June 1996). IAHS Publ. no. 239, 1997.

331

GPS elevation surveysa key to proactive flood

plain management

DAVID F. MAUNE
Dewberry & Davis, 8401 Arlington Boulevard, Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666, USA

Abstract For the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

Dewberry & Davis (D&D) surveyed thousands of homes with the Global
Positioning System (GPS) accurate to 2 inches (5 cm). D&D demonstrated
that accurate and inexpensive GPS elevation surveys, mass-produced for all
buildings in or near Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), are a key to
proactive flood plain management. Without elevation data, flood plain
managers are generally restricted to reactive measures. With elevation data,
flood plain managers can: (a) perform reliable hazard identification and risk
assessments; (b) take proactive measures to actually reduce flood risks; (c)
produce GPS Elevation Certificates which help home owners recognize their
true flood risk and obtain best-value flood insurance to reduce their financial
vulnerability; and (d) help accelerate Federal disaster assistance funding
when flooding actually occurs. The benefits to a flood-prone community
appear to greatly outweigh the low, mass-produced cost to the community in
obtaining the highly accurate GPS elevation surveys that make proactive
flood plain management possible in the first place.

INTRODUCTION
In 1994, in response to severe flooding in Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Texas,
Dewberry & Davis surveyed nearly 8000 flooded buildings to collect flood inventory
data for FEMA's Individual Assistance Program. Concurrently, certified flood
adjusters made "windshield survey" damage estimates for these buildings; these
estimates were subsequently found to be in error by 50-100%. Damage estimates can
be vital for timely and correct rebuild/buy-out decisions. These decisions often
depend on whether estimated repair costs exceed 50% of the replacement value of the
flooded building. In 1994, FEMA determined that existing computer models could
more accurately estimate flood damages by knowing three things about each flooded
building:
(a) What is the approximate area of the building's "footprint"?
(b) What is the building's estimated replacement value?
(c) How deep was the interior flooding, to the nearest whole foot (30 cm)?
The answers to (a) and (b) could be collected in advance for all flood-prone
buildings in a community; but FEMA needed a way to quickly obtain the answers to
(c) for each building actually flooded. Additionally, D&D sought other means to help
flood plain managers to be truly proactive. Central to this need was the means to
better perform flood hazard identification and risk assessment, vital for flood
mitigation initiatives.

332

David F. Maune

GPS COMPARISON
In 1995, in cooperation with the Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky,
Metropolitan Sewer District, FEMA sponsored a comparison of two GPS
technologies on the basis of vertical accuracy and cost/productivity. We refer to
these technologies as "GPS Backpack" operated by Larry N. Scartz, Ltd, and "GPS
TruckMAP" operated by John E. Chance & Associates. Both utilized Trimble
4000SSe receivers with real-time kinematic (RTK) and on-the-fly (OTF) reinitialization. They used alternative techniques for surveying the 3-D coordinates
(latitude, longitude, and elevation) of survey target points on buildings without
intruding on private property. D&D calls this "stand-off surveying".
For the productivity portion of the test, nearly 1300 high-density houses were
surveyed to determine if Elevation Certificates could be mass produced for US$30
per house, as opposed to the typical price of US$250 per house.
For the accuracy portion of the test, 62 of the 1300 total houses were selected to
be independently surveyed by both methods because they presented technical
difficulties in one or more of the following ways:
(a) they were located along tree-lined streets where tree canopy cover would
interfere with GPS signals and where D&D could test the OTF capabilities when
satellite lock was lost;
(b) they were located on the opposite side of hills from the GPS base station, where
RTK radio corrections would have difficulty reaching the GPS rover units; and/or
(c) they were located up to 200 feet (61 m) off the road so that elevations would be
"cantilevered" by significant distances.
These three technical challenges were considered essential to test the true
capabilities and limitations of stand-off GPS survey techniques. BackPack and
TruckMAP would independently survey these 62 houses, and correct for local
variations in gravity. D&D would then compare the two elevation data sets and
determine if FEMA's 6-inch (15 cm) vertical accuracy requirement for this test was
satisfied. If the GPS technologies performed well under these difficult conditions,
they could be relied upon also to perform well under simpler conditions.
When the two elevation data sets were laid side-by-side for the 62 difficult
houses, the results were amazing! The elevations all agreed within about one inch
(2.5 cm). The r.m.s. difference was two-thirds of an inch (1.7 cm), and the
maximum error was less than +2 inches (5 cm) at the 95% confidence level. In highdensity housing areas, both methods proved that highly-accurate Elevation
Certificates could be mass produced for less than US$30 per house.
Both BackPack and TruckMAP gave comparable results and were considered
useable. FEMA subsequently sponsored GPS elevation surveys of thousands of other
homes in 61 counties in eight states nationwide. With the best geodetic-grade GPS
receivers and exacting procedures, D&D found that survey control points and
benchmarks are typically in error by 6 to 12 inches (15 to 30 cm), and sometimes by
several feet or more. D&D found some new homes nationwide had been constructed
at elevations that make them vulnerable to predicted floods in the future. And D&D
found that approximately one-third of conventional Elevation Certificates, that
establish the cost of flood insurance for post-FIRM homes, were in error by more
than 1 foot (30 cm) when checked by more-accurate survey methods.

GPS elevation surveysa key to proactive flood plain management

333

CHALLENGES PREVIOUSLY UNSOLVABLE

See Table 1 for a summary of nine common challenges that can be solved with GPS
elevation surveys.
Elevation errors. Challenges 1 and 2 pertain to elevation errors. Errors in survey
control points, benchmarks, elevation reference marks (ERMs), etc. can undermine
the accuracy and intended utility of products from the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs) and conventional Elevation Certificates can all have undetected errors if
they result from poor survey control. Rigorous GPS elevation surveys can resolve
control point/benchmark discrepancies and identify the best control in each county
for NFIP use. National Geodetic Survey (NGS) control points, regularly updated on
NGS' electronic bulletin board (301-713-4181) are the most reliable.
Table 1 Challenge solutions from GPS elevation surveys.
CHALLENGES currently facing
flood plain managers
1. Benchmarks nationwide have
15-30 cm errors; some errors
>1.0m.
2. Large % of conventional
elevation certificates have
elevation errors > 30 cm.
3. Cannot quantify hazards and
risks from 500-, 100-, 50- and 10year floods.
NOTE: Hazard identifications and
risk assessments are key to all
mitigation efforts.
4. Difficult to justify drainage
improvement projects.

SOLUTIONS with pre-flood GPS elevation surveys to predict

depth of interior flooding of flood-prone buildings
Use best control from National Geodetic Survey (NGS) in each
county for all NFIP products.
Strictly follow NGS Guidelines for GPS Elevation Surveys
[5 centimetre accuracy] to survey all flood-prone buildings.
Correct GPS surveys rigorously for local gravity variations.

5. Conventional Elevation
Certificates: costly (typically
US$250), less accurate.
6. Pre-FIRM buildings currently
don't require Elevation Certificates
to identify actual flood risks.
Subsidy is expensive; Congress
directed 1996 subsidy restudy.
7. Difficult to predict candidate
buildings for retrofit/floodproofing.

Produce GPS Elevation Certificates:

- Highly accurate and affordable when mass produced:
* elevation accuracy: +5 cm,
* < US$30 per building in high density urban areas,
* < US$70 per building in low density rural areas;
- BFE interpolated to +3 cm.
Community eliminates excuses for not buying insurance by
providing certificates free to Pre-FIRM and Post-FIRM
homeowners and encouraging purchase of flood insurance. Apply
for CRS credits to reduce rates and offset costs.
Use GPS elevations to run computer models for 500-, 100-, 50and 10-year floods. Identify candidates for relocation, elevation in
place, flood walls, levees, flood-proofing (wet and dry). Perform
benefit-cost analyses; take proactive steps.

8. Post-flood "windshield"
estimate errors of 50-100%.
9. Lengthy delay for disaster
inventories and "rebuild/buy-out"
decisions for buildings
substantially damaged.

Survey post-flood elevations of several high water marks; then,

calibrate H&H models to flood event.
Estimate damages to individual buildings and communities.
Accelerate rebuild-buy-out decisions; expedite receipt of
Individual/Family and Hazard Mitigation Grant moneys.

Apply FEMA/USACE computer models to reliably estimate flood

damages. These models require (1) predicted flood depths,
(2) "footprint" areas, and (3) replacement values.
Quantify legitimate flood risksfor individual buildings and for
the entire communityas a basis for mitigation initiatives.
Computer models determine expected damages from 100-year and
other floodswithout drainage improvements (higher BFEs) and
with drainage improvements (lower BFEs).
Determine benefits of project in terms of damages avoided.

334

David F. Maune

Inability to quantify flood hazards and risks. Challenge 3 indicates the dilemma
in being unable to accurately quantify hazards and risks from 500-year, 100-year,
50-year, and 10-year floods. By pre-flood surveying the elevation of the reference
level of each building in or hear a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the
community can estimate, on a house-by-house basis, the depth of interior flooding
that would be caused by the standard flood events. The computer models, cited
above, can then compute the estimated damages to each building, and to the
community as a whole, as a result of the standard flood events (500-year, 100-year,
50-year, and 10-year floods). Such hazard identifications and risk assessments are the
key to all mitigation efforts, and the community can then be aggressive and proactive
in taking mitigation initiatives to reduce future flood losses, and in promoting flood
insurance to owners of at-risk homes.
Difficulty in justifying drainage improvement projects. Challenge 4 indicates that
it is difficult to justify drainage improvement projects without detailed elevation data
on individual buildings in the drainage basin. For example, how does one prove
whether or not it is worth US$2 million to construct a drainage improvement project
that will lower the base flood elevation (BFE) by 2 feet for an area that includes 400
flood-prone homes? By knowing the elevation of the lowest floor of each home, its
"footprint" area, and its replacement value, computer models can accurately estimate
expected damages from standard flood events prior to drainage improvements, and
then recompute the expected damages with drainage improvements that lower the
BFEs. The drainage improvement project benefits can be determined in terms of the
damage avoided.
Limitations in conventional Elevation Certificates. Challenges 5 and 6 pertain to
conventional Elevation Certificates, which are sometimes considered to be an
impediment to the sale of flood insurance. All Elevation Certificates (conventional or
GPS) are expensive when not mass-produced. Although Elevation Certificates aren't
required for pre-FIRM buildings (constructed prior to publication of Flood Insurance
Rate Maps of the area), the US Congress has directed a 1996 study of the current
subsidy for pre-FIRM homes. Without Elevation Certificates, it is difficult to identify
candidate buildings for retrofit/flood-proofing.
Challenges 5 and 6 can be solved by producing highly-accurate GPS Elevation
Certificates, mass-produced and quality-controlled, for all buildings in or near flood
plains, providing them free to pre-FIRM and post-FIRM homeowners, and
encouraging them to purchase flood insurance. A sample GPS Elevation Certificate is
at Fig. 1. In addition to the individualized photograph of the building in question, the
background map pinpoints the building's geographic location centred on the base
map road network and also its position in or near the SFHA shown in blue. The BFE
is interpolated to the nearest 0.1 foot (3 cm), and the elevation of the "target point"
surveyed on the house is also shown to the nearest 0.1 foot. Target points are most
typically the bottom of front door (BFD) or the top of foundation (TOF). Offsets to
below-ground floors are estimated, based on standard 8-foot (244 cm) basement
foundations, or 9-foot (274 cm) standard offsets between floors. Corrections can be
made by the insurance agent and owner if the offset distance error is significant for
insurance rating purposes. The estimated depth of interior flooding from the 100-year

l-*1

!id

GPS elevation surveysa key to proactive flood plain management

5.-S

.! fc

Qi
< I

^v--

.,:^|lF^

mm^Mtm

ii

335

Ml ?
Hi

I 111
I

336

David F. Maune

base flood is also provided on the GPS Elevation Certificate.

GPS Elevation Certificates, free to all, would clearly be important in the event
Congress decides to eliminate the subsidy for pre-FIRM homes. In fact, they would
probably be the key to success or failure in getting pre-FIRM homeowners to
purchase flood insurance at actuarial rates.
Challenge 7 can be solved by using GPS elevation data to run the computer
models for standard flood events to identify candidates for relocation, elevation in
place, flood walls, levees, dry or wet flood-proofing. Benefit-cost analyses indicate
the viability of retrofitting/flood-proofing of selected buildings.
Limited response to actual flood events. Challenges 8 and 9 pertain to current
problems in estimating actual flood damages and in expediting Federal moneys to
assist flooded homeowners and affected communities. The solution is actually quite
simple. By already knowing the elevation of the lowest floor of each flood-prone
building, its area and replacement value, the community would merely need to
survey the post-flood elevation of several high water marks (e.g. 14th, 12th, and 9th
Street bridges) in order to calibrate the hydrologie and hydraulic (H&H) models to
the actual flood event. Then, flood plain managers could quickly and accurately
estimate the depth of actual interior flooding, estimate the damages to individual
buildings and communities, accelerate rebuild/buy-out decisions, and expedite the
receipt of Individual and Family Grant (IFG) and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(MHGP) moneys.
For more information, contact Dr David Maune, D&D's Director of Mapping,
Remote Sensing and GPS/GIS Services, at +1 703 8490396.
Acknowledgements The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, especially Michael Buckley and Matthew Miller of
the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Division, and Howard Leikin of the
Federal Insurance Administration, who were instrumental in providing support for
the innovative GPS survey projects described in this paper.