text:
Moving to Flood Risk Management and a Modern Flood Risk Analysis
Society has been attempting to deal with flooding for several millennia. Initially, those at risk of flooding moved out of the way of rising waters. If that became impractical, leaders would turn to methods that would control floods by keeping them away from the population through use of embankments, channels, and elevating structures. This emphasis on flood control began in the third millennia B.C. and continued through to the middle of the 20th century when it was recognized that structures alone could not overcome the flood challenges (Sayers et al., in press). In the mid-20th century, other tools such as floodproofing, building codes, land-use management, and early warning systems joined flood control structures in flood damage reduction efforts. However, as population and development grew, flood losses continued to rise and the need for the establishment of priorities for the use of scarce resources became apparent (Figure 3-1).
Following in the path of several centuries of experience in the insurance and financial industries, flood management professionals across the globe began to examine risk management methodologies that could be used to assess the flood hazards that had to be faced and the consequences that would result from flooding, and the relative significance of the risks that were identified. By the end of the 20th century, the concept of flood risk management had been widely accepted in Europe and was beginning to take hold in the United States. This evolution of approaches to dealing with floods is described in Figure 3-2.
Flood risk is a function of the characteristics of the hazard, the exposure to the hazard, the vulnerability1 of that which is exposed, and the consequences that could occur should the hazard reach the exposed, and vulnerable elements of the potentially flooded area. Probabilities are a part of all elements of risk—the probability of the event taking place, the probability that the exposed area will be flooded, the probability that the flood mitigation systems in place will successfully reduce vulnerability, the probability that the people and property in the target area will remain in the area and be subject to flooding, and the probability that they have insurance, etc. Flood risk management represents comprehensive efforts, to continuously carry out analyses, assessments, and related mitigation implementation activities to reduce flood risk (FLOODsite, 2004; Sayers et al., 2012).
Movement to flood risk management requires that those responsible enter into an iterative process that seeks to identify the hazards faced by the community and assess the exposure, vulnerability, and potential consequences of these hazards should a flood event occur. Provided with this information, the community then develops and
1 Vulnerability is "the potential for harm to the community and relates to physical assets (building design and strength), social capital (community structure, trust, and family networks), and political access (ability to get government help and affect policies and decisions). Vulnerability also refers to how sensitive a population may be to a hazard or to disruptions caused by the hazard" (NRC, 2012b).
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 33
Moving to Flood Risk Management and
a Modern Flood Risk Analysis
Society has been attempting to deal with flooding for several millennia. Initially, those at risk of flooding
moved out of the way of rising waters. If that became impractical, leaders would turn to methods that would
control floods by keeping them away from the population through use of embankments, channels, and elevating
structures. This emphasis on flood control began in the third millennia B.C. and continued through to the middle
of the 20th century when it was recognized that structures alone could not overcome the flood challenges (Sayers
et al., in press). In the mid-20th century, other tools such as floodproofing, building codes, land-use management,
and early warning systems joined flood control structures in flood damage reduction efforts. However, as popula-
tion and development grew, flood losses continued to rise and the need for the establishment of priorities for the
use of scarce resources became apparent (Figure 3-1).
Following in the path of several centuries of experience in the insurance and financial industries, flood man-
agement professionals across the globe began to examine risk management methodologies that could be used to
assess the flood hazards that had to be faced and the consequences that would result from flooding, and the relative
significance of the risks that were identified. By the end of the 20th century, the concept of flood risk manage-
ment had been widely accepted in Europe and was beginning to take hold in the United States. This evolution of
approaches to dealing with floods is described in Figure 3-2.
Flood risk is a function of the characteristics of the hazard, the exposure to the hazard, the vulnerability 1 of
that which is exposed, and the consequences that could occur should the hazard reach the exposed, and vulnerable
elements of the potentially flooded area. Probabilities are a part of all elements of risk—the probability of the
event taking place, the probability that the exposed area will be flooded, the probability that the flood mitigation
systems in place will successfully reduce vulnerability, the probability that the people and property in the target
area will remain in the area and be subject to flooding, and the probability that they have insurance, etc. Flood
risk management represents comprehensive efforts, to continuously carry out analyses, assessments, and related
mitigation implementation activities to reduce flood risk (FLOODsite, 2004; Sayers et al., 2012).
Movement to flood risk management requires that those responsible enter into an iterative process that seeks
to identify the hazards faced by the community and assess the exposure, vulnerability, and potential consequences
of these hazards should a flood event occur. Provided with this information, the community then develops and
1 Vulnerability is "the potential for harm to the community and relates to physical assets (building design and strength), social capital (com-
munity structure, trust, and family networks), and political access (ability to get government help and affect policies and decisions). Vulner-
ability also refers to how sensitive a population may be to a hazard or to disruptions caused by the hazard" (NRC, 2012b).
OCR for page 33
FIGURE 3-1 Estimated Total Flood Damages in the United States, 1934-2000, billions of dollars. Data adjusted to inflation
by using the Construction Cost Index (CCI) from the McGraw-Hill Construction Engineering News-Record. To adjust each
year's number, the 2011 CCI was divided by the CCI of the year in question and then multiplied by the raw damage amount
for that year.
FIGURE 3-2 The evolution of flood management practice through history. It can be anticipated that in the years ahead, ad-
vances in technology will provide capabilities that will permit more effective and efficient capabilities to identify and deal
with risk. At the same time, increased communications capabilities will better prepare the population at large to understand
and participate in the development and use of risk strategies.
SOURCE: Sayers et al. (in press).
OCR for page 33
implements a strategy for coping with the risk. The strategy and implementation remain under continuous review,
and when circumstances dictate, adjustments are made to the strategy. Risk communication is a continuous effort
throughout the process (Figure 3-3). The effectiveness of the flood risk management process is linked to sound
data and modern computational tools.
A risk analysis is a detailed examination:
performed to understand the nature of adverse consequences from a particular event to human life, property, or the
environmental; an analytical process that provides information about or quantifies probabilities and consequences
of an unwanted event. Oftentimes broad definitions of risk analysis include examination of risk communication, risk
perception, and risk management alternatives. (NRC, 2010)
A subset of a risk analysis, a flood risk analysis is an analytical process that provides information about or quanti-
fies probabilities and consequences of a flood event. A flood risk analysis is a subset of the broader risk-based
approach to flood risk management described throughout this report (Figure 3-3).
The use of risk-based methods to evaluate the performance of civil infrastructure systems such as nuclear
power plants and dams (URS/JBA, 2008; ASME/ANS, 2009) and to serve as the basis for building codes (DOE,
2002), evaluation of terror threats (NRC, 2010) is now well established. Similarly, in the context of the insurance
industry, risk analysis methods are used routinely to conduct portfolio assessments (AIR, 2012; RMS, 2012). The
advancement of risk analysis methods to evaluate major infrastructure systems and extensive portfolios parallels
the improvement in technology; software, hardware, and key datasets (e.g., Lidar, building inventories). As a con-
sequence, software tools and hardware to support risk-based analyses have advanced to the point that evaluation
of large portfolios has been performed (URS/JBA, 2008; IPET, 2009; AIR, 2012; RMS, 2012).
FIGURE 3-3 The flood risk management cycle illustrates the multistep flood risk management process.
SOURCE: Sayers et al. (in press), NRC (2012a), Moser et al. (n.d).
OCR for page 33
The use of risk analysis methods to evaluate flood risks and specifically to consider the performance of levees
has been ongoing and improving for over a decade (USACE, 1996; URS/JBA, 2008; IPET, 2009). In the 1990s,
USACE developed a probabilistic approach and software tools to evaluate flood damages (USACE, 1996). This
methodology was used as part of planning studies to evaluate flood loss reduction benefits. The National Research
Council (NRC) reviewed the USACE flood loss reduction methodology and reported on its findings in 2000 (NRC,
2000). The NRC found the USACE techniques a significant step forward and commended the agency for embrac-
ing risk analysis techniques. The NRC also noted that the USACE approach was technically sound, but aspects of
the methodology as it related to the evaluation of uncertainties required improvement.
Following Hurricane Katrina, USACE established the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET)
to determine the causes of levee and floodwall failures in New Orleans. Early work by the IPET, which involved
over 300 professionals from government agencies, academe, and the private sector, used risk-based techniques in
its analysis and the IPET recommended that USACE begin a move to risk-based approaches, to include geotech-
nical analyses in its work. Shortly thereafter, USACE announced that it would become a risk-based organization
and that efforts would be made to accelerate the use of risk-based techniques not only in studies of future work
but in analysis of existing structures (USACE, 2008).
Title 44, Section 65.10, of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR §65.10) refers to the "risk study" that is
performed when a community is seeking recognition of a levee system. Although the regulation does not specifi-
cally spell out what is meant by a risk study, in practice, it is a flood hazard analysis. The flood hazard analysis
currently used within the NFIP to assess flood risk establishes a legislated level of protection (the one percent
annual chance flood), using standard hydrologic methods that compute the expected elevation of that flood at a
given location and assumes that any flood protection structures at that location designed to pass the one percent
annual chance flood will in fact do so. To account for uncertainty, structures are required to be built to the one
percent annual chance flood elevation plus a specified number of feet of freeboard.
To elaborate, under current NFIP policies a partial risk-based analysis is used with respect to performance of
levee systems, where many parts of the analysis (e.g., the geotechnical component) are deterministic in fashion.
A levee system is only recognized for its benefits if it is "accredited," meaning that the levee system has been
determined to meet minimum design, operation, and maintenance standards that are consistent with a level of
protection associated with the ability to pass the one percent annual chance flood, as specified in section 65.10
. In other words, the levee system is only considered if it performs perfectly up to standard; if not, it is ignored.
Thus, if a levee system is accredited, its potential failure is included in the flood hazard analysis and it is simply
considered as part of the river hydraulics. A levee system that does not meet accreditation standards is not consid-
ered in the analysis used to quantify flood risk, even though it provides some (potentially considerable) protection
against flooding.
The current approach to flood risk analysis does not address certain components that are critical to a modern
flood risk analysis. These include the uncertainties in the hydrology, the probabilities that a protection structure
might fail at less than the design elevation, the consequences that will result from the actual flooding, and the
probabilities of the success of actions such as, for example, evacuation of the elderly and disabled. Capturing these
factors in the NFIP's approach to flood risk analysis is the source for the committee's advice that the program
move to a modern risk-based analysis.
To elaborate on these issues, communities construct levee systems to protect up to the one percent annual
chance flood, enabling new development in areas with significant, but un-quantified exposure to catastrophic
flood risk. Thus, protection against the one percent annual chance flood event is the de facto standard for most
levees in the United States, with limited regard to residual risk—that is, the consequence of capacity exceedence. 2
Furthermore, levee systems that only marginally meet certification standards are vulnerable to decertification. If
not properly maintained, the performance of levee systems degrades over time due to erosion, rodent damage,
and subsidence. Further, the frequency and magnitude of flood hazards can increase over time due to natural and
anthropogenic causes.
2 TheState of California recently legislated that levees protecting urban areas should provide protection against the 0.5 percent annual chance
flood (200-year) (California Government Code § 65007(l)).
OCR for page 33
Under current NFIP policies, lands behind accredited levee systems are not designated as being in a Special
Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and are not required to manage flood risk, even though the risk can be significant.
Floods greater than the one percent annual chance flood can and do occur. Accredited levees can fail and have
failed during smaller floods, causing catastrophic damage to structures and endangering residents. For example,
in February 1986 the Linda-Olivehurst levee, a certified levee located on the Lower Yuba River in California,
failed (Figure 3-4). Economic and life-safety risks associated with accredited levee systems are not accounted for
in the current NFIP policy, which generally means that flood risks have not been effectively evaluated and, as a
result, not effectively managed.
FIGURE 3-4 Images of the certified Linda-Olivehurst levee failure in 1986. The failure occurred after the flood had crested
8.6 feet below the levee crest. (Top) The breach was 170 feet wide and (bottom) entire neighborhoods were flooded in the sur-
rounding community. The economic loss was $1.5 billion and lives were lost.
SOURCE: Rogers (2012).
OCR for page 33
The summation of these factors is that, under current FEMA policies and flood hazard analyses, the flood risk
for many lands is not described completely, for a variety of reasons. This is not unknown to FEMA or relevant
stakeholders including policy makers. In its 2006 report, the Interagency Levee Policy Review Committee rec-
ommended that within 5 years FEMA should, in the evaluation of levees, begin to use the risk-based hydrologic
techniques being employed by USACE (ILPRC, 2006). In 2007, USACE, in coordination with FEMA, established
the National Flood Risk Management Program, emphasizing the intention of the USACE to move to risk-based
approaches to flood management. In 2009, with the creation of the Risk MAP program, FEMA identified risk-based
analysis as a critical element in efforts to accurately identify the risk to those who occupy flood-prone areas. 3 As
indicated in Chapter 2, the Biggert-Waters Act placed emphasis on risk analysis in NFIP activities and directed
the formation of the USACE-FEMA Flood Protection Structure Accreditation Task Force to better coordinate the
data development of the two agencies in levee accreditation. 4
In this report, a modern flood risk analysis is defined as a risk analysis using the best available science and
analytical methods to evaluate flood risk. This is more precisely defined as an analysis where the likelihood of
adverse consequence (loss, personal injury) is quantitatively evaluated, taking into account
1. the likelihood of flood events occurring (the randomness of future events);
2. the likelihood that the capacity of levee and other flood protection systems may be overwhelmed by the
flood (be overtopped) or fail (the randomness of structure performance for given levels of loading), leading to
flooding of protected areas; and,
3. given flooding has occurred, an assessment of the consequences that occur.
Each element of the analysis is subject to uncertainty; neither the chance that different-size flood events can occur
nor their magnitude can be estimated exactly—they are uncertain. These uncertainties and the related implications
to the estimate of risk are quantitatively evaluated in a modern risk-based analysis.
There are a number of clear and specific attributes of a flood risk analysis that are not inherent to the defini-
tion, but at the same time, define what it means to perform such an analysis. For instance, the analysis considers
the occurrence and consequences for a full range5 of flood events that can occur, impact a community, and affect
the assessment of insurance rates; it models and analyzes the hydrologic system, including levees and flood pro-
tection systems as systems, physically and logically integrated features that impact the outcome of future events;
and it quantitatively evaluates the sources of uncertainty that affect the results and the estimation of future losses.
The ILPRC (2006) and many others (Appendix F) recommend that the NFIP should move to implement a more
complete approach to the risk analysis that is the cornerstone of its mapping and insurance program. The commit-
tee concurs with these recommendations. A modern risk analysis would take advantage of new computational and
mapping capacity to produce state-of-the art risk estimates for all areas that are vulnerable to flooding hazards.
The analysis would provide a foundation for the NFIP to directly evaluate flood hazards and the performance of
levee and other flood control systems and assess the consequences of flooding using sound engineering assessment
and scientific and probabilistic methods. Specifically, the modern risk analysis would
3 Although Risk MAP is focused on new and better analysis to support existing criteria and methodologies of the NFIP, this focus does not
prevent the program from considering risk in the broader sense. The committee considers this program an important step in FEMA's attempt
to move toward risk-based analysis.
4 Section 100221, Interagency Coordination Study.
5 The term "full range" is used in general terms to reflect that the likelihood of small as well as large flood events are considered in the
analysis, not just a single event. The range that is considered should be broad enough to include the frequency and consequences of events
that are meaningful to floodplain management and determination of insurance rates.
OCR for page 33
• provide direct engineering- and reliability-based assessment of the performance of flood protection systems
in the evaluation of flood hazards in protected and unprotected areas; 6
• account for the performance of risk reduction that is attributable to nonstructural measures;
• provide a means to establish an insurance program that is based on a continuum of flood risks as opposed
to the current approach that is partially deterministic;
• offer a clear and informed basis for risk communication;
• provide a reliability-based means for the assessment of levees and flood protection systems and their
• improve the long-term stability of flood hazard and risk estimates that are a basis for insurance pricing,
presuming that uncertainty and changing conditions are accounted for properly throughout the analyses;
• require that levees and appurtenant structures and subsystems be evaluated and modeled as part of flood
protection "systems" whose reliability has a significant impact on the flood risks that communities face;
• afford the opportunity for communities and others to understand their flood risks at the community level
and to assess the economic benefit of alternative floodplain management options; and
• provide risk information at a community as well as an individual property scale, which would offer the
opportunity for communities to more clearly understand the value of community participation in the NFIP.
Such an analysis would provide an in-depth technical evaluation of flood hazards and directly account for
the performance of levee flood protection systems, whether accredited within the NFIP or located within an NFIP
community (i.e., levee systems that protect against the one percent annual chance flood or not). It would account
for all elements of the flood protection system (levees, gates, other structures, etc.) that significantly affect flood
risk, as long as they meet minimum design, operation, and maintenance standards. Hence credit could be given
when establishing flood insurance rates for flood protection systems that do not protect to the one percent annual
chance standard (or any new standard), but at the same time provide some level of protection. Risk analysis results
would also differentiate between protection provided by levees that protect to the one percent annual chance flood
and higher, for example, 0.2 percent levees. It would be able to recognize the difference in risk between low areas
behind levees and higher ground.
In addition to the foregoing, a risk-based analysis offers other advantages. A modern risk-based analysis will
account for the uncertainties that affect the quantitative representation of the flood hazard and the estimated per-
formance of flood protection systems. The current analysis for flood risk estimation neglects significant sources
of uncertainty in the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and it does not account for any aspect concerning the
performance of flood protection systems other than the binary aspect (meets or fails to meet criteria). And it does
not account for uncertainties in the consequences of flooding. The proposed modern flood risk analysis directly
accounts for these uncertainties, building on techniques that have been developed and applied in the evaluation of
risks associated with other natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes) and that have been used in the flood and levee
areas (USACE, 2006; URS/JBA, 2008; IPET, 2009).
In a broader context, utilizing a modern risk analysis will provide a sound foundation for transitioning to risk-
informed floodplain management. For example, it will provide flood hazard and risk information (at the individual
property and at the community level) to communities in areas protected by levees and will identify their risk. The
present system has implied to communities that live behind accredited levees that they are "safe." This implica-
tion and the lack of specific risk information can be addressed with risk analysis products that are designed, with
the support of risk communication experts, to better inform communities and decision makers about flood risks.
Also, a modern risk analysis would provide guidance to the communities for development of new strategies that
would encourage wise floodplain management.
In addition to advancing the technical basis for flood risk analysis, the approach described here is, in
many ways consistent with the methods being developed and implemented by USACE (Box 3-1). However,
6 The terms "reliability" and "performance" are used differently across the flood risk community. For the purposes of this report, the geo-
technical behavior of levees is referred to as performance. Reliability is used to refer to the likelihood under a given condition that the levee
or levee system will perform in a way for which it was designed (IPET, 2009).
OCR for page 33
USACE Risk-Related Guidance
USACE began to develop an approach to using modern risk concepts in the evaluation of flood man-
agement projects in the early 1990s. In 1996, the agency published its first formal guidance document on
risk, Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies (USACE, 1996). This manual describes
how the risk concepts would be used in USACE flood damage reduction studies in the conduct of hy-
drologic, hydraulic, geotechnical, and other analyses. The manual became the standard for conduct of
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for planning studies but was not adopted by the geotechnical and other
communities within USACE. In 2000, USACE issued Design and Construction of Levees to promulgate
the basic principles that should be used in design and construction of levees (USACE, 2000). That manual
noted the use of a risk-based approach and hydrologic and hydraulic design, but indicated that geotechnical
would continue to use a deterministic methodology.
In 2006, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, USACE issued Risk Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction
Studies, to update the 1996 manual on risk-based analysis, noting that
The ultimate goal is a comprehensive approach in which the values of all key variables, parameters,
and components of flood damage reduction studies are subject to probabilistic analysis. Not all variables
are critical to project justification in every instance. In progressing toward the ultimate goal, the risk analysis
and study effort should concentrate on the uncertainties of the variables having a significant impact on study
conclusions. (USACE, 2006).
Structural and geotechnical analyses were to be included in overall risk-based analyses.
In 2006, in the wake of levee failures during Hurricane Katrina, USACE directed the conduct of an
evaluation of the performance of the New Orleans hurricane protection system. The results of this evalu-
ation, which was carried out by the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force, highlighted the need
for the use of modern risk analyses in the design and construction of levees and related flood damage
reduction structures. This evaluation led to the establishment of the USACE Levee Safety Program with
the mission "to assess the integrity and viability of levees and recommend courses of action to make
sure that levee systems do not present unacceptable risks to the public, property, and environment." In
response to congressional and administration direction, it also initiated a levee inventory project that has
been transformed into the National Levee Database (NLD) (see Chapter 6).
Faced with the need to evaluate many levees that were part of both the USACE and NFIP programs,
in 2010, USACE issued the USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Levee
System Evaluation. This document provided guidance to field activities on the evaluation of NFIP levees
to determine if USACE would certify that the levees met the standards of 44 CFR §65.10. The document
indicated that it was "USACE policy to apply a probability and uncertainty analysis framework to NFIP levee
system evaluations." It noted however that, "Probability of exceedance and uncertainty-based methodolo-
gies are under development and emerging for structural and geotechnical engineering elements but are
not yet sufficiently mature for direct application in NFIP levee system" (USACE, 2010).
In 2008, USACE established a Risk Management Center to develop policies, methods, tools and
systems to enhance its risk management activities overall, including as this applied to levees and dams.
As part of its tool and policy development activity, the Risk Management Center is developing processes
by which levee safety can be analyzed in the field and levee safety classifications determined for use in
levee management.
USACE is currently using risk analysis in its programs and continues to develop, along multiple paths,
its approach to use of these concepts in levee planning, design, and evaluation. No single approach has
been promulgated, but all are founded on the use of risk-based methodologies. Although USACE's goal
is to ultimately develop an integrated approach to risk analysis across its flood risk reduction portfolio, the
agency has not yet issued fully coordinated policy guidance and technical instructions that would define
the approach and how it will be implemented.
OCR for page 33
some differences may exist in the USACE approach and the analysis proposed here (e.g., in the evaluation of
uncertainties). Yet, by adopting a risk-based approach, the NFIP and USACE can develop a common techni-
cal basis for evaluating flood protection systems and defining their future working relationship as it relates to
levees in the NFIP.
Thus, the proposal to adopt a modern risk analysis is considerably more than implementing a different techni-
cal approach to the determination of insurance rates, but rather a program-wide adoption of and engagement in
risk-informed management principles and practices. As such, the implementation of risk analysis methods will be
an integrated program activity that extends beyond the NFIP actuaries and risk analysts.
The elements of a modern, flood risk analysis are schematically illustrated in Figure 3-5. The elements of the
analysis are summarized here and more fully described in Appendix H. They include:
• Flood Hazard Analysis. The hazard analysis estimates the frequency of occurrence and the magnitude
of flooding (flood elevations, flow velocities, forces) that may impact a region. A key component of the hazard
analysis is an assessment of the sources of epistemic uncertainty and the effect that these uncertainties have on
the estimate of the frequency of occurrence and the magnitude of future flood events.
• Levee and Other Hydraulic Structure and Component Fragility Analysis. The purpose of the fragility
analysis for structures and components that make up a flood protection system is to estimate their performance as
a function of the flood levels (elevations, forces, etc.) that may occur. The elements of the flood protection system
may include structures (levees, floodwalls, gates, etc.), mechanical or electrical components (pumps, emergency
power systems, etc.) and operators (personnel responsible for gate closures, pump system operation, etc.). The
hazard level that causes failure of a structure or component is not exactly known; therefore, the conditional prob-
FIGURE 3-5 Elements of the modern flood risk analysis.
SOURCE: Modified from IPET (2009).
OCR for page 33
ability of failure or damage (the fragility) is uncertain. A fragility curve shows the variation of the conditional
probability of structure or component failure, given a level of flooding. At low levels of flooding, the conditional
probability is zero. As flood levels increase, the conditional probability of failure increases, until a point is reached
where failure is certain. There are a number of uncertainties in estimating the fragility of a structure or component,
thus making the assessment of conditional probability of failure uncertain.
• Systems Analysis. The potential for flooding in a region, and in particular, protected areas, depends on
the performance (response) of the natural and man-made system during a flood event. This includes all features
that affect flooding along the river system, for example, the hydrologic impact of upstream structures and non-
structural measures. A system model defines the relationship between the hazard and the combination of events
(levee performance including failure, nonfailure, and overtopping) that can lead to different flooding outcomes.
A system model describes the relationships between different elements of the flood protection system and their
performance and the interaction with the flood event itself and the likelihood that protected areas may experience
flooding. These relationships may be physical/causal, functional (systems operations), or probabilistic (correlation
of different factors).
• Inundation Analysis Including Levee Breach and Inundation. For a flood event that is modeled, the inunda-
tion that may occur in a region is a function of the flooding level, the performance of the structures and components
that provide protection to a region, the interrelationship of structures and their performance, and the hydraulic
assessment of inundation that may occur. In the event of levee or floodwall failures, an assessment of the breach-
ing that may occur is considered. This includes the size and timing of the breach, as well as its location. When a
breach occurs, properties that are located in the resulting inundation are likely to experience greater damage than
if the same area had been flooded in a without-levee situation. There are a number of reasons for this. First, if
there are structures in the area adjacent to the breach, these structures will be impacted by high-velocity flows.
In addition, these structures may be completely destroyed as a result of the scour that takes place as the breach
forms. Similarly, structures located beyond the scour zone will also experience high-velocity flows that otherwise
might not have occurred in a without-levee case.
• Consequence Assessment. The purpose of the consequence assessment is to estimate the damage to struc-
tures that are inundated in a flood event. At this time, the routine consequence analysis estimates direct damages
to structures. Indirect losses and such aspects as loss of life and social cultural impacts are in the earlier stages
of evolution (IPET, 2009). The assessment of damage is often based on models derived from empirical loss data.
However, as part of the consequence analysis, it is important to consider the range and type of damages that may
occur for events where there are limited loss data. For instance, if a levee breaches, structures in the flooded area
will be inundated to a certain level. Some structures may experience greater damage if they are located close to
the breach scour zone.
• Risk and Uncertainty Quantification. This part of the risk analysis probabilistically combines the elements
of the analysis and calculates the frequency of occurrence of flood events and the consequences (damage to struc-
tures). As part of the quantification, the epistemic uncertainties, discussed below, are also propagated through the
analysis to estimate the uncertainty in the risk results.
As a starting point for the development of an NFIP flood risk analysis, a conceptual framework for a flood
risk analysis can be defined as
R = f(H,V,C) (3-1)
where risk (R) is a function of
H = flood hazard,
V = vulnerability, and
C = consequence (e.g., economic impact, public safety).
OCR for page 33
This basic conceptualization of flood risk analysis has been adopted by the Department of Homeland Security and
is consistent with Box 1-3 (NRC, 2010). In this context, risk is a function of the flood hazard to which a com-
munity is exposed, the vulnerability of flood protection systems, and the consequences associated with flooding
and system failures and the damage to a community, including economic impact and life safety. Implicit in this
conceptual framework is the probability that consequences may occur.
This conceptual framework is extended to the assessment of the probability (also expressed as a frequency of
occurrence) of adverse consequences that could occur as a result of a flood hazard. In other words, this extension
incorporates the concept of uncertainty into the framework by an expanded, quantitative definition of risk (Kaplan
and Garrick, 1981; ASME/ANS, 2009; IPET 2009):
R = f(H,V,C,ν,r) (3-2)
ν = frequency of occurrence or exceedance and is a measure of the aleatory uncertainty (the randomness of
r = probability as a measure of the confidence to which an estimate of ν is the true value, or the epistemic
uncertainty in the estimate of ν.
Equation 3-2 is consistent with the definition adopted for the entire report in the sense that the estimate of risk
takes into account the occurrence of the flood hazard, the exposure and vulnerabilities of people and property
to the hazard, the consequences caused by the hazard, and the uncertainty about all these parameters. But most
importantly, it establishes the quantitative representation of risk.
As mathematically depicted above, a flood risk analysis is an evaluation that is made on the basis of available
information, in which all aspects of the analysis are subject to uncertainties: the flood hazard analysis, the assess-
ment of levee system performance, the assessment of flooding/inundation, and the estimate of consequences. In
its recent review of the DHS approach to risk analysis, the National Research Council (NRC, 2010) noted that the
evaluation of uncertainties is integral to a risk analysis. In building a risk analysis capability and risk-informed
culture within the NFIP, how uncertainty is defined and incorporated is critical. Experience in other fields sug-
gests that there is considerable benefit to defining these fundamentals so that they become a core element of the
methods and tools that are developed (SSHAC, 1997; USNRC, 2011).
There are different types of uncertainty to consider in a flood risk analysis. The first type is attributed to the
inherent randomness of events in nature—aleatory uncertainty—and is, in principle, irreducible. Examples of this
type of uncertainty are the outcome of a roll of the dice, the occurrence (the time and place) and magnitude of a
flood event, the spatial variation of levee properties, and the performance of a levee during a flood. In the context
of engineering or statistical models, aleatory uncertainty can also correspond to unique (often small-scale) details
that are not explained by a "model." For a given model, one cannot reduce the aleatory uncertainty by collection
of additional information. One may be able, however, to better quantify the aleatory uncertainty by using addi-
tional data.
The second type of uncertainty is attributed to lack of understanding (e.g., knowledge) about physical pro-
cesses or a system that must be modeled. This source of uncertainty is referred to as epistemic (knowledge-based)
uncertainty. There are a number of sources of epistemic uncertainty, including limited data to estimate model
parameters, incomplete understanding of physical processes or systems, the limited ability of models (engineer-
ing or statistical) to predict events or outcomes of interest (modeling uncertainty), and the potential that multiple,
alternative, technically defensible models or modeling approaches exist that give different results that affect the
final assessment of risk. In principle, epistemic uncertainties can be reduced with improved knowledge and/or the
collection of additional information.
The process of identifying and evaluating sources of epistemic uncertainties can vary, depending on the
subject, the state of scientific or engineering understanding, observational and modeling experience, etc. For
example, in a field or topical area where considerable observational experience exists and statistical models are
used to develop predictive tools, the analysis of epistemic uncertainties may be an integral and in-depth part of
OCR for page 33
Frequency of Exceedance per Year
1 10 100 1000
Loss ($m)
Fr equency of Exceedance per Year
1 10 100 1000
Loss ($m)
FIGURE 3-7 (Top) F/N curve illustrating the estimate of the frequency distribution on economic consequences without epis-
temic uncertainty . This shows the frequency that the annual maximum damage exceeds a specific value; this curve is the un-
derpinning of the NFIP Hazus Multi Hazard (Hazus-MH) calculation of Average Annualized Losses due to flooding. (Bottom)
Estimate of economic consequences that includes the quantification of the epistemic uncertainty.
OCR for page 33
FIGURE 3-8 IPET description of the flood hazard (top); performance of the levee, that is, levee fragility curve (middle); and
potential for flooding (bottom). Incorporation of aleatory uncertainty only is shown on the left. Both aleatory and epistemic
uncertainty are shown on the right, giving a more complete estimate of the likelihood of inundation.
OCR for page 33
the levee embankment (for flood levels below the levee crest) and failure due to overtopping. The assessment of
the fragility for these failure modes is subject to epistemic uncertainties; that is, an estimate of the conditional
probability of failure given a peak storm surge and wave height elevation cannot be estimated exactly (Figure
3-8B, middle). For instance, epistemic uncertainties that affect the levee stability analysis include:
• uncertainty in the geotechnical stability model (model uncertainty),
• limits in available data including the estimate of soil properties and overtopping resistance of levees,
• limits in the knowledge of the levee feature.8
Given the epistemic uncertainty in the estimate of the frequency of hurricane surge and wave heights and
in the estimate of levee fragility, there is a corresponding uncertainty in the IPET estimate of the frequency of
level system failure. That is, rather than making a single point estimate of the frequency of failure, a distribution
of estimates is made that quantitatively reflects the epistemic uncertainty in both the hurricane hazard and in the
levee system fragility analyses. This distribution of levee failure frequency estimates is shown in Figure 3-8B,
bottom, as a probability density function on the estimate of the frequency of levee system failure. From this result,
the mean frequency of failure can be determined. In addition, the analyst can make "confidence" statements about
the uncertainty in the levee system frequency failure.
The NFIP is a unique government program that has a specific mandate and, at the same time, provides informa-
tion to a wide range of users, establishes a standard of practice for flood hazard analysis, and floodplain mapping,
and, by default, establishes what has been seen as a public safety standard for communities behind levees. The
implementation of a more modern risk analysis as a part of the NFIP, as proposed and described earlier in this report,
yields enhanced information about flood hazards, performance of flood protection measures, and consequences.
With that information, FEMA can further support efforts to reduce flood losses in the United States (see Figure 3-9).
Table 3-1 shows a sample of the risk analysis products, uses, and users. Although uses are limited to FEMA's
main missions (risk communication, insurance, and mitigation; column 3), this information is useful to the public
or to public agencies meeting other objectives. For example, a local or state agency seeking to reduce flood risk
could use information on levee performance to make investment decisions for strengthening levees or implement-
ing a property buy-out program in areas of greatest potential damage.
Realigning the NFIP to undertake a modern risk analysis, use products of such an analysis, and account for
uncertainty in the inputs is a shift from "business as usual." Current NFIP analyses focus on hazard—primarily
on the 1 percent and 0.2 percent annual chance exceedance events. Current analyses limit consideration of con-
sequence of flooding to insurance rate setting, without geographic specificity that is possible as proposed here.
Levee performance is considered in current practice in a standards-based manner, with accredited levees consid-
ered as surely protecting against inundation and unaccredited levees as surely not protecting. What is proposed
herein expands the risk assessment to consider explicitly the entire range of flood events, integrates the hazard
assessment with economic consequence estimation throughout the analysis and decision making, and accounts
in a more robust manner for levee performance throughout the range of hazards. The NFIP should move to a
modern risk analysis that makes use of modern methods and computational mapping capacity to produce
state-of-the-art risk estimates for all areas that are vulnerable to flooding.
The analysis of flood risks is multidisciplinary (hydrologists, geotechnical and structural engineers, operations
personnel, etc.). As procedures for the implementation of a modern NFIP risk analysis are developed, these pro-
8 Estimate of the correlation length of levee properties. Correlation length refers to the length along a levee over which properties of the
levee are estimated to be homogeneous and therefore its performance during the hurricane will be uniform.
OCR for page 33
FIGURE 3-9 With results of risk analysis as proposed, annual exceedence probability for individual elements of floodplains
can be mapped, shading those elements with probability > regulatory threshold. Darker elements have a greater probability of
inundation; lighter elements have less. The A transect illustrates a cross section of the channel at which the flow moves from
the channel onto the floodplain. This illustrates the shading with a fixed-grid two-dimensional floodplain flow model, coupled
with a one-dimensional channel flood model. Thus, the probability of inundation for any location in the floodplain behind a
levee could be computed and mapped, considering the natural hazard and the performance of the levee. This would enable
quick inspection to determine areas of greater hazard.
cedures need to clearly define the responsibilities of the professionals involved in the study, the interdisciplinary
coordination that is required, the evaluations they are expected to perform, and the results they need to generate.
This report does not address these issues specifically, but does discuss steps toward the development and imple-
mentation of a risk-based program.
Implementing a Risk-Based Approach
The following tasks are necessary in order for FEMA to implement a modern risk-based approach successfully:
1. Develop, test, and deploy—with the same care and rigor with which standard procedures for hydrologic
and hydraulic analysis and mapping have been developed, tested, and deployed—a procedure for the complete
risk analysis. This procedure should be consistent in concept with that described in the Summary Description of
the Risk-Based Approach section of this chapter, including all components shown. This includes algorithms and
computational methods that consider the likely users of the risk analysis procedures.
2. Develop, test, and deploy a consistent procedure for assessing levee systems (rather than individual levee
segments) and for describing levee performance with a fragility curve.
3. Design, develop, test, and deploy a software application that can be used for FEMA's risk analysis by
agency staff, affected public agency staff, and contractors. This application may incorporate features of FEMA's
Hazus application—particularly the consequence assessment features and databases.
4. Emphasize and expand FEMA's program of collecting and analyzing flood damage data, including insur-
OCR for page 33
TABLE 3-1 Products Useful for FEMA's Insurance, Risk Communication, and Mitigation Programs Yielded by
a Modern Risk-Based Analysis .
Information Category Risk Analysis Product Use Description
Flood hazard Floodplain stage frequency Risk communication Report on likelihood of inundation to various
(floodplain) distributions for locations depths for individual parcels, census tracts, or
in the floodplain; including other subdivisions, better communicating risk to
at the individual property occupants, owners.
level. This result will also
include an estimate of the
uncertainty in the flood
frequency estimate.
Flood hazard Flood stage frequency Mitigation Provide information on depths, velocities, and
(floodplain) distributions for locations other flood properties throughout floodplain,
in the floodplain; including for specified events, to inform emergency
at the individual property evacuation and safe shelter planning by
level. This result will also government agencies, industry, and public.
include an estimate of the
uncertainty in the flood
frequency estimate.
Flood hazard Flood stage frequency Risk communication, Support wise land-use decision making by
(floodplain) distributions for locations mitigation identifying annual exceedence probability of
in the floodplain; including a parcel, tract, etc. in interior floodplain. This
at the individual property is consistent with earlier recommendations
level. This result will also by NRC (2000) that "the Corps use annual
include an estimate of the exceedance probability as the performance
uncertainty in the flood measure of engineering risk . . . and the federal
frequency estimate. levee certification program focus not upon
some level of assurance of passing the 100-
year flood, but rather upon 'annual exceedence
For convenience, and in keeping with tradition,
this information can be displayed on a map
similar to existing FEMA maps (Figure 3-9).
Flood hazard Flood stage frequency Risk communication, Similar to above, but conditional flooding
(floodplain) distributions for locations mitigation can be displayed to answer question: Given
in the floodplain, including channel flood flow or stage of specified
at the individual property annual exceedence probability, will a parcel,
level. This result will also tract, etc. on the floodplain be inundated? For
include an estimate of the convenience, this answer too can be mapped.
uncertainty in the flood For example, properties with annual exceedence
frequency estimate. probability >0.01 can be identified and shaded,
yielding a map similar to current FEMA maps,
but taking into account performance of levees in
other than a binary manner (Figure 3-9).
Deaggregation of Conditional probability Risk mitigation, Report on the relative contribution of different
the flood hazard distribution on the relative emergency events (flood events, levee failure events, etc.)
(floodplain) contribution of different preparedness that contribute to flooding in a community. This
flood scenario types (levee detailed information provides insight into the
overtopping, levee breach, hazards to which a community is exposed and
breach locations, interior can guide the selection of mitigation measures
drainage and ponding, etc.) and emergency preparedness and support risk
to the frequency and depth communication.
of flooding.
OCR for page 33
TABLE 3-1 Continued
Information Category Risk Analysis Product Use Description
Levee system Levee system fragility Risk communication A levee system fragility curve provides
performance estimates, including an quantitative information on the performance
estimate of the uncertainty of a levee system, which may comprise
in the system fragility. multiple levee reaches, gate structures, etc. It
provides direct information on the reliability of
infrastructure performance and the protection it
is intended to provide for a community. This can
be integrated with hazard information to provide
information on combined probability that a
certain flood level will occur and that the levee
will protect from interior area flooding.
Levee system Levee system fragility Mitigation Provides information useful for identification of
performance estimates, including an deficiencies and for setting priorities on repairs
estimate of the uncertainty or upgrades to existing infrastructure, especially
in the system fragility when integrated with hazard information.
Frequency Frequency distribution Insurance Enables computation of expected annual damage
distribution on on the consequences of for use with premium determination procedures
consequences flooding. This will also described in Chapter 5. This information can be
include an estimate of the provided at the individual structure level and
uncertainty in the frequency community level.
of exceeding levels of
Frequency Frequency distribution Mitigation Enables computation of expected annual damage
distribution on on the consequences of for comparison with cost estimated for flood
consequences flooding. This will also management alternatives to assess feasibility
include an estimate of the of investment for federal, state, and local
uncertainty in the frequency mitigation planning.
of exceeding levels of
Frequency Frequency distribution Risk communication Provides property owner or floodplain occupant
distribution on on the consequences of with information about flood losses that they
consequences flooding. This will also may expect on average for any year or over a
include an estimate of the longer duration.
uncertainty in the frequency
of exceeding levels of
NOTE: Risk analysis products are results of or intermediate products of the risk analysis described in this chapter. Uses are limited to FEMA's
main missions: risk communication, insurance, and mitigation.
ance claim data and corresponding flood properties, and adding to that damage and flood property data collected
from other agencies, including USACE and state and local government agencies. Depth-damage models commonly
used for assessing consequence as a component of risk analysis are best calibrated and verified with actual damage
data. Completing this task will ensure that models for consequence estimates are accurate and reliable.
5. Develop, test, and deploy consistent procedures for describing the uncertainty in all inputs to the risk
analysis, include uncertainty about flow frequencies, water surface elevations, levee performance models, and
consequence estimates.
6. Refine and enhance the methods of communication of information on flood risk, including now information
on consequence. With the revised risk analysis approach proposed here, the information to be communicated offers
an estimate of direct, tangible, economic impact of flooding—the cost to a property owner and information on
potential life-safety consequences. (The risk analysis conducted by IPET for New Orleans indicated the potential
OCR for page 33
deaths that could be encountered for various levels of flooding.) The revised analysis will also offer information
about the probability that water will exceed specified depths in any year; this can be expanded easily to describe
the probability that flood depths will exceed specified depths over the life of a mortgage or another informative
7. Work closely with other federal agencies to ensure that techniques are consistent across agencies so that
communities are not faced with using multiple approaches to evaluate a levee system. (See Chapter 8 for further
New Technology and Cost
FEMA can leverage new technology to share the information now available. For example, in 2000 the state
of North Carolina was designated a Cooperating Technical State by FEMA, a decision largely driven by the
impact of Hurricane Floyd in 1999 highlighting the need for accurate flood maps for the state. North Carolina's
Floodplain Mapping Program began updating and acquiring high-resolution flood hazard data, specifically light
detection and ranging (Lidar) to generate digital elevation data, and creating new Digital Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (DFIRMs) (North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, n.d.). This information is available on the Web
through North Carolina's Floodplain Mapping Information System, which includes access to DFIRMs and other
features such as data export capability and a property address search function to enable viewing of flood risk to
a specific property (Figure 3-10).
The cost to FEMA of developing procedures for and implementing a program based on modern risk analysis
cannot be predicted with certainty without information from pilot applications, which are a valuable pursuit.
However, in the absence of pilot studies, a comparison between the costs for a modern risk analysis that would
be above that incurred for a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) using current methods (i.e., the incremental cost) is
Current FIS procedures require many of the same hydrologic and hydraulic inputs required for a modern
risk-based analysis, which indicates that the incremental cost for pilot studies should not be significant. Similarly,
information on exposure and vulnerability of floodplain property is available in FEMA's Hazus database, and so
the incremental cost of gathering information should not be significant (unless a community prefers more recent
information, in which case the cost of conducting a new structure inventory would be included). Topographic data
are necessary for establishing the relationship between flood hazard and consequence; these are collected for cur-
rent FIS studies, and so no additional cost will be incurred for this portion of the modern risk analyses.
The greatest cost, not currently incurred for a FIS, is the cost of developing system fragility curves—the
functions that represent the likelihood that levees and appurtenant structures will provide the protection for which
they were designed. Developing the curves requires information about the materials, methods of construction,
operation and maintenance, performance history, and so on. Much of the information required to develop fragility
curves is also required to meet the current requirements for certification and accreditation under 44 CFR §65.10.
However, the manner of interpretation of the information is different when compared with the proposed modern
risk analysis approach. No longer can an engineer compare the system or levee state to a standard, finding that
the standard is or is not met. Instead, a qualified geotechnical engineer will evaluate the integrity of a levee
system and incorporate this quantitatively in the conditional performance of the system. This can be done, as the
State of California demonstrated with its Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. For risk analyses to support that
study, engineers developed fragility curves at approximately 300 locations in approximately 1 year, following an
extensive data collection effort (CA DWR, 2012). Similarly, USACE has developed levee fragility curves for use
in ongoing planning studies, all of which now employ a risk analysis along with procedures and guidance for the
development of appropriate levee fragility curves (USACE, 2006; Schultz et al., 2010).
9 A FISis an examination of flood hazards with a specific legislative definition (Appendix C). From the FIS, FEMA's FIRMs are produced.
A flood hazard study, which is discussed in this chapter, is a consideration of the frequency of flooding included in the FIS.
OCR for page 33
FIGURE 3-10 A screen shot of an area subject to flood risk in North Carolina according to high-resolution flood hazard data
gathered. The menu bar at the top of the image allows the user to explore exposure of an individual structures to the flood
hazard as well as other options such as a DFRIM export function. Pink depicts areas subject to one percent annual chance
flooding (AE zone, floodway), blue areas are subject to 1 percent annual chance flooding (AE zone, has base flood elevation
established), and green areas are subject to the 0.2 percent annual chance flooding (shaded X zone).
SOURCE: http://www.ncfloodmaps.com, accessed January 7, 2012.
A Living, Risk-Based Analysis: Maintenance and Agents of Change
A modern risk-based analysis will serve a very different role than FEMA's current analysis of the flood hazard,
which yields a flood map that is not updated with regularity. The modern risk-based approach will be an integral
part of all aspects of the NFIP: mapping, floodplain management, portfolio analysis, and insurance rate assessment.
As such, the risk-based analysis will be a living, integral part of the NFIP; something that is used regularly by the
program actuaries and analysts. By its very nature, the modern risk-based analysis will be a regularly updated,
preferably online, resource for FEMA.
When a modern risk analysis is performed for a community, it would be based on information that is available
at the time. Following its completion, there are factors that may change the risk profile of a community, and there-
fore require maintenance (updating of certain data) and possibly revision of hazard, performance, and consequence
components and the resulting risk analysis products shown in Table 3-1. Given the role the risk analysis will play
in the NFIP, it is important that FEMA develop and implement procedures to periodically review, maintain, and
update the risk-based analysis, as necessary. There are a number of agents of change that may affect future flood
risks: climate change, community development and changes in land use, changes in population, condition of flood
mitigation systems (success of system maintenance, changes in system configuration, etc.), changes in the water-
shed, and so on. As such, FEMA's implementation plan needs to take these factors into account.
OCR for page 33
The processes for maintenance and review needs to include
• periodic review of the elements of the risk analysis (hydrologic analyses that describe the flood hazard,
geotechnical engineering studies that yield description of levee system performance, inventory of properties, etc.);
• standards that define the steps and basis to revise, refine, or replace one or more elements of the risk analysis
for a community, and that establish schedules for periodically reviewing and revising
o individual property information,
o levee and flood mitigation system properties and condition, and
o hydrologic and hydraulic modeling.
Within its current program, FEMA has requirements for archiving hydrologic and hydraulic models used in the FIS
(FEMA, 2003) and requiring that information on levees be maintained and certification be periodically updated.
With the development and implementation of a risk-based analysis to evaluate community flood risks, FEMA
needs to extend these practices to a community risk-based approach and faithfully maintain them.
FEMA policy with regard to levees is spelled out in 44 CFR §65.10. In addition to defining the base flood as
the one percent annual chance exceedance flood, the regulation states that a community must provide evidence of
a flood protection system's ability to provide protection from the base flood. As noted in Chapter 1, the require-
ments that determine whether FEMA recognizes a levee system on NFIP maps include (1) design criteria, (2)
operation plan criteria, and (3) maintenance plan criteria. If the levee system satisfies the criteria and is certified,
it is recognized on NFIP maps, with the protected floodplain "mapped out" of the hazard area. If the levee system
does not meet the criteria, the levee system is assumed to provide no protection.
Within the context of a risk-based analysis to evaluate the floodplain and flood protection systems in particu-
lar, the analysis would quantify the residual risk in the area behind every flood protection system, and develop
insurance pricing based on the level of protection that is provided. For instance, communities will be given credit
for the level of protection that is provided, even if this level is below the base flood standard—the estimated risk
analysis and corresponding rates will recognize this change.
AIR (American Institutes for Research). 2012. AIR Models Overview. Available online at http://www.air-worldwide.com/
Models/Overview/. Accessed November 28, 2012.
ASME/ANS (American Society of Mechanical Engineers and American Nuclear Society). 2009. Standard for Level 1/Large
Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Addenda to ASME/ANS
RA-S-2009. LaGrange Park, IL: ANS.
CA DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2012. 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, Attachment 8E Levee
Performance Curves. Sacramento, CA: CA DWR.
DOE (Department of Energy). 2002. Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy
Facilities. DOE-STD-1020-2002. Washington, DC: DOE.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2003. Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners.
Available online at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2206. Accessed December 12, 2012.
FLOODsite. 2004. Flood Risk Management. Available online at http://www.floodsite.net/html/flood_risk.htm. Accessed August
14, 2012).
ILPRC (Interagency Levee Policy Review Committee). 2006. The National Levee Challenge: Levees and the FEMA Flood Map
Modernization Initiative. Available online at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2677. Accessed August 8,
IPET (Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force). 2009. Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast
Louisiana Hurricane Protection System: Final Report of the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force. Available
online at https://ipet.wes.army.mil/. Accessed December 4, 2012.
Kaplan, S., and B. J. Garrick. 1981. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis 1(1):11-27.
Morgan, G. M., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy
Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
OCR for page 33
Moser, D., T. Bridges, S. Cone, Y Haimes, B. K. Harper, L. Shabman, and C. Yoe. n.d. Transforming the Corps into a Risk
Managing Organization. White Paper. Available online at http://corpsriskanalysisgateway.us/data/docs/ref/Explore%20
Resources/IWR%20Reports/White_Paper-Transforming_the_Corps_into_a_Risk_Managing_Org.pdf. Accessed Febru-
ary 5, 2013.
NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. Hydrologic Information Center—Flood Loss Data.
Available online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/hic/. Accessed February 27, 2013.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. n.d. LIDAR and Digital Elevation Data. Fact Sheet. Available online at http://
www.ncfloodmaps.com/pubdocs/lidar_final_jan03.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2013.
NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2010. Review of the Department of Homeland Security's Approach to Risk Analysis. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
NRC. 2012a. Dam and Levee Safety and Community Resilience: A Vision for Future Practice. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
NRC. 2012b. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
RMS (Risk Management Solutions). 2012. RMS Models. Available online at http://www.rms.com/models/. Accessed November
28, 2012.
Rogers, J. D. 2012. GE 301 Lectures—Evolution and Development of Flood Control Engineering. Available online at http://
web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge301/. Accessed November 15, 2012.
Sayers, P., G. Galloway, E. Penning-Rowsell, F. Shen, K. Wang, Y. Chen, and T. Le Quesne. 2012. Flood risk management:
A Strategic Approach—Consultation Draft. UNESCO on behalf of World Wildlife Fund–UK/China and the General
Institute of Water Design and Planning, China.
Schultz, M. T., B. P. Gouldby, J. D. Simm, and J. L. Wibowo. 2010. Beyond the Factor of Safety: Developing Fragility Curves
to Characterize System Reliability. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
SSHAC (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee). 1997. Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis—
Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts. Rockville, MD: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1996. Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies. EM 1110-2-1619.
Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE. 2000. Design and Construction of Levees. EM 1110-2-1913. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE. 2006. Risk Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies. ER 1105-2-101. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE. 2008. Improving Public Safety—From Federal Protection to Shared Risk Reduction. Letter to J. Nussle, Director,
Office of Management and Budget, April 16, 2008. Washington, DC: USACE.
USACE. 2010. USACE Process for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Levee System Evaluation. EC-1110-2-
6067. Available online at http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-circulars/EC_1110-2-6067.pdf. Accessed
November 27, 2012.
USNRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard
Studies, NUREG-2117. Washington, DC: USNRC.
URS/JBA (URS Corporation/Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc.). 2008. Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS), Phase
1, Risk Analysis Report (Draft). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Water Resources.
OCR for page 33


text:
See All Contributors »
Type: Posts; User: TheOtherBrent; Keyword(s):
Sec H; Row 11; Seats 10-13 $40/ticket
Great effort by our guys! We're going to win some big games this year!!
Man disappointing loss. but we almost won that one with scotty and jake less than 100% and minus railey on the road. I'm still hopeful for a successful year. Great effort guys.
Gotta finish this game! We don't have the bodies for OT!
The fact that I have 3 cats of my own shows how much faith I have in Freddy :smile:
I think that no matter how Fred's coaching career turns out here at Iowa State he will always be loved by Cyclone fans. But, I honestly can't see how he won't be successful in turning this...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
8.21 out of 10 (what is this?)
• coreys08 • core_scott_feldman • coreyfive • feldman71 •
Press & News
Corey Feldman Pens Open Letter To Corey Haim
Public Records
Corey Feldman, Los Angeles, CA
Corey Feldman, Los Angeles, CA
Free Trial
Are You Corey Feldman?
See what is available about YOU online instantly!
Manage your identity, update your information.
Arrest Records
Corey Feldman Search Their Arrest Record,Driving Record,Marital Status and More...
Alternative Names:
corey scott feldman
cory s feldman
42-year-old Corey Scott Feldman lives in Los Angeles, CA, but has also spent time in Scottsdale, AZ; Canoga Park, CA; Encino, CA and Granada Hills, CA.
He attended the Rock 'n' Roll High School Forever. Companies in which he has a work history include Cheers, Alice, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Maverick, The Fox And The Hound, Last Resort, The Guardian, Love, Legion, Anchor, Song Writer, Father Figure, One Day At A Time, Storm Trooper, Ian, Natalie, Time After Time, Red Line, Family Ties, Heart Of The City, License To Drive, Gremlins, Voodoo, Actormusician, Splatter, Sliders, Eight Is Enough, Dream A Little Dream, Blown Away, Dweebs, Married With Children, Trying Times, The Waterfront, Lottery, The Lost Boys, Hooking Up, Born Bad, The Love Boat, Gloria, Willa, Exile, Child Actors, Film Actors, Jewish Actors, Television Actors, Voice Actors, Father Murphy, Still The Beaver, Son Of The Beach, Tales From The Crypt, Cbs Schoolbreak Special, The Goonies, Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go, Stand By Me, The Crow: Stairway To Heaven, Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger Iv, The Beautiful Outsiders, Stepmonster, Busted, Mork & Mindy, Foul Play, The Million Dollar Kid, Loaded Weapon 1, Dark Realm, A Dangerous Place, Bordello Of Blood, Lovesick, Serial Killing 4 Dummys and Die Abenteuer Von Pico Und Columbus. Jobs he has held in the past include Singer and Actor. Hip-hop, The Goonies, Pinmonkey, Rascal Flatts, La Bamba and Brides Of Destruction are among his favorite bands. Among his favorite TV shows are Television Actors, Full House and Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Star Trek, The Lost Boys, The Breakfast Club, Friday The 13th, Stand By Me, Young Guns, The Burbs, Sahara, License To Drive, Cry-baby, Dream A Little Dream, Last Resort and Pirates Of The Caribbean are among his all-time favorite films.
Corey is related to Brooke Lindsay Feldman, Carol Y Man, Jeffrey Todd Feldman, Donald A Feldman, Susannah Feldman, Lauretta E Feldman, Seth Feldman, Susannah Feldman, Sidney C Feldman and Sidney Feldman. On the internet, Corey goes by the aliases coreys08, core_scott_feldman, coreyfive, feldman71, coreyfeldmanandcoreyhaim, core_f_rp and theycallmefeldog.


text:
zaynharry: "i want a kiss from everyone of you on any part of my body.." musiclover-1d Source: zaynharry
the-ones-we-love: girl-who-watches-2-much-anime: ultra-dalek-caan: the-adonis-pluto: audiemichael: REBLOG : This girl was found dead the morning after this photo was taken. She died of suffucation, and was found with a plastic bag over her head. She loved taking pictures of herself. It wasn't until a week after she was killed, her sister found this on her laptop. Police investigations have no lead on her murder except for the man hidden in this picture. The mans identity remains unknown. If you dont reblog this in 254 seconds this man will appear in one of your pictures and kill you the same way she was. I AIN'T RISKIN' ANYTHING! I SORRY FOLLOWERS! BUT I AM A FIRM BELIEVER IN THESE THINGS! WHICH IS RIDICULOUS! BUT I AM REBLOGGING IT! // I WILL NOT RISK THIS i don't always reboot these kinds of things, but when i do I DO fuck you asshole i fucking hate these chain shits because i scroll past and try to laugh it off then i fucking shit myself and send it on to the poor people who follow me Not risking it ! forgodsakesnialler Source: audiemichael


text:
Ford & Mazda Incode Tool
- Print
- View full size
Ford & Mazda Incode Tool
Ford Mazda key match, the engine computer synchronization, replacement of the control module needs INCODE.
VCM Diagnostic software or OEM Key Programming Machine will show the OUTCODE on-screen.
In this time, enter the INCODE on the VCM or OEM Tools, before continuing to the corresponding function.
Just connect the F&M CODE between the Diagnosis equipment or OEM Key Programming Machine into your car's;
Tools Support: VCM/T300/AD100/SBB ... and so on, as long as the device prompts you to OUTCODE, FMCODE will automatically display INCODE.
F&M CODE device supports all CANBUS models, high-speed CAN, be able to support low-speed CAN)
(The old car does not support K line communication, we can provide INCODE).
The way to get INCONDE:
A: Requesting PATS INCODE from the Agent
B: With foreign code calculator
(Error INCODE you getting is high, there are number of restrictions, the purchase price is expensive)
Diagnostic equipment for supporting F&M CODE:
Other equipment can only be to support the OUTCODE and can't support INCODE input. The F&M CODE device can support all.
Contact information:
Skype: obd4u.co.uk
MSN: email@example.com
E-mail: email@example.com
Complaints: firstname.lastname@example.com
If any problems, please feel free to contact us!
From | Title | Comment |
2012-07-02 Vitas Matas. | I just received the goods, It is very good , Ford JLR works well , I want to do business with you again. | |
2011-10-18 Julian. | High quality, acceptable price, friendly service, that's very good! |
Site recommended product
Thanks for your visiting,Here we strongly recommend this four hot sale items to you:X431 X-431 Diagun/Lexia-3 PP2000 PPS/Super Mercedes Benz Mb star/BMW GT1 DIS V57 SSS V39.Using the right car diagnostic tool may help you detect problems earlier.These device materializes humanization and they will be good assistant for garages.If you want to know more information about Auto diagnostic tools,just look around our store,i am sure you could find your favorite one.The Best Wholesale Stock!
As the world's leading wholesale company, our online shop offers more than 100 thousand famous brand products made in China with high quality and wholesale prices. We also provide experience professional service.
Free to Join
It only takes seconds to register for free, after then you can have your own brand-new shopping cart to select whatever you want! The first thing you need to do is fill a valid email address. Start buying online and grab a bargain now!
No Minimum Orders
There have no minimum order requirements for most of our products, and you can buy a retail product at wholesale price! Wholesalers can get larger discounts if you shop more! You can personally browse our wide range of products now.
Fast Delivery For All Our Wholesale Stock
All our packages are shipped by DHL, EMS and UPS. It only takes 2 to 5 days in shipping from obd4u.co.uk warehouse to major destinations in North America, Europe and Australia. Order today and rest easy!
Easy to Order
You can order products through obd4u.co.uk even having not registered. Major credit, debit cards, and secure payment option PayPal are all accepted. We also support wire transfer and Western Union payments!
Secure Online Shopping
The first task at obd4u.co.uk is security. We using advanced security solution provider VeriSign to ensure the security of all transaction data. Online shopping at obd4u.co.uk becomes safer and easier for you.


text:
Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
Power your smartphones iPhone iPod digital cameras camcorders MP3 Players MD player multimedia players Bluetooth devices and more while on-the-go. Constantly taking pictures listening to music and texting your friends? Listening to Pandora Watching Movies or reading your email? All the features included into our electronic devices increase the demand on power and draining the battery life. RND Power Solutions Premium external battery packs / power bank is the perfect power accessory. Supplies power and charges your electronic device while plugged into the external battery pack /power bank. RND Power Solutions external battery pack / power bank goes through an extensive 5 step quality control process to ensure Premium Quality Design and Protection for your electronic devices. RND Power Solutions PB5000 is the perfect solution to extend power to stream videos music and browse the web. With high quality performance and affordable pricing this is the ideal power solution for your on-the-go charging needs. Other great features include: Stylish small footprint design fits into your purse or pocket; You can take a charge from an AC adaptor (Not Included) or from other electronic devices through the USB port; Use it as a rechargeable battery pack or external power source; Can be charged anytime; Can be rapidly charged with any quick charger smart chargers plug in charger or universal chargers; Provides ultra-long use time per charge with this super high 5000mAh capacity; Portable energy has never been so versatile and available. RND Power Solutions external battery pack /power bank works with most USB Devices from the following the manufactures but not limited to Apple Blackberry Canon Casio Fuji HTC JVC Kodak LG Motorola Nikon Nokia Samsung Sony and many more. Do not see your device on this list? PLEASE feel free to contact us. We will be happy to assist you! NOTE: Works for all versions of the iPhone except the 4S.


text:
Recent Updates:
[Commie][Mazui][gg] – Hyouka
[5 Groups] - Tasogare Otome x Amnesia
[Tsumiki][Commie][Hadena] - Acchi Kocchi
[SubDESU][WhyNot][Crunchyroll][FFFine] - Medaka Box
[gg][NowWeTheChefs] - Jormungand
Details on the grading scheme, perceived difficulty, and liberal scale (LS): Grading Scheme v2
*Note: The new grading standards for accuracy have been raised significantly this season compared to previous seasons. B+ is the new A-, B is the new B+, C is the new B-, D is the new C, and F is the new D+. This new grading scheme allows me to differentiate releases with more precision and differentiate two releases that would have been given the same grade under the old grading scheme. Refer to Grading Scheme v2 for more details.
Definitions of "good translation" and "best practices": Fan Translation Guide
*(Difficulty brackets): Quirk / Wordplay included
*Red: Official subs
*Blue: Fansubs
*Bold: Simulcast / Speed subs (Release within 24 hours of first broadcast)
*([Streamer] Mod): Edit and/or TLCed official subs.
*"Technicals": Accuracy grade breakdown.
Spring 2012 |
Accel World
I can easily give myself A- grade for the UTW release, but all groups had more time than usual to translate this episode (pre-air for Ep1 and 2), so reviewing now wouldn't reflect the appropriate grades in the long run. There is also the simulcast situation that may "change" translators for other groups. On hold until at least Ep3.
Acchi Kocchi
Difficulty = 6; Technicals | *Updated April 17, 2012 |
Tsumiki | B, LS-4 | ||||||||||
Some of the "minor mistakes" were nitpick tier, and the script was easy to read and it was funny..I would go with this release. | ||||||||||
Commie | B-, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Some lines were very awkwardly phrased or stiff. They handled some lines very well, and accuracy was decent..Watchable. | ||||||||||
Shinbunbu-Hadena | C, LS-3 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Really stiff, and misses the jokes. Most of their errors weren't that major, but there were lots of it..There's no reason to watch this unless they release first. |
*Due to the difficulty of this show (too much talking and lack of context) and possibly my nitpicking, the grading scheme was tweaked to calculate Accuracy grades for this series.
Difficulty = 9; Technicals | *Updated April 25, 2012 |
Commie | C-, LS-7 | ||||||||||
I'm pretty impressed this script was created for such a fast release.There's way too many errors to fully understand everything being said, but they did have a lot of quality lines. Some lines were way too long, and short (none?) lead in and outs for timing definitely didn't help its readability.
This show, like Mawaru Penguindrum, should be very carefully translated so that important metaphors and themes aren't lost IMO. |
Mazui | C-, LS-4 | ||||||||||
I heard three translators worked on this release. As expected, it's a very uneven script, and relatively many errors in first half of the script.There were also many very awkwardly phrased lines, including the final error that resulted in a troll-like line. However, it was a lot better than I expected after seeing all those comments and reviews. There were some lines they translated the best as well.
Overall, I don't think they interpreted key lines well enough to be fully understood though. |
gg | B-, LS-5 | ||||||||||
I thought I struggled a lot in this episode due to sleep deprivation, but judging by the number of errors made by other groups, it was a very difficult show to translate. I'm a bit disappointed by typos and some parts of the dialog skipped too.We will make a v2 for Ep1, but we hope to release faster from now on, so these minor errors may persist until I get a feel for this show. |
Difficulty = 8; Technicals | *Updated April 12, 2012 |
gg | B, LS-7 | ||||||||||
The new Difficultyratings really have a huge effect on grades now that I revamped it, as well as raised grading standards. The translation quality for this release was actually decent..It was extremely well edited (in the sense of improving flow and nuance), and there were tons of great lines.Some mistakes were present, but that's to be expected for a show of this difficulty level. | ||||||||||
NowWeTheChefs (v2) | F+, LS-4 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Hardsub-only encode in 2012 from what seems like a scanlation group. As I expected, their sub quality is terrible like one of those ancient fansub releases too.They messed up the very first line, and I would've probably rewrote the entire script if I was TLCing this release.
Terrible English, bunch of context and misc. translation errors, attempted creativity but getting the lines completely wrong and neglected other lines, timing errors everywhere, encodes look worse than what I can probably produce with default 2-pass settings. Avoid like the plague. |
*Note: Don't bother asking about [st0ned] release. That is a re-encode group, and they used [gg] subs.
Kore wa Zombie Desuka? Of the Dead
Difficulty = 5; Technicals | *Updated April 10, 2012 |
Hadena | ?, LS-? | ||||||||||
Editing |
They gamed the system with Brave 10 last season by using a temporary translator last time.I scanned through their subs and it seems to be in the B- to C+ range, but I'm withholding this review until I clear my queue and more episodes are released.Ep1 was decent, but I would not trust their future releases at this point. | ||||||||||
Commie | B+, LS-8 | ||||||||||
Editing |
The translation for this release is solid, and I liked clever terminologies like "Magiclad".There is a few interesting liberal interpretations, but most of them worked very well.
A couple of qualms from me, but overall the sub quality is very good. |
Doki-AFFTW | D-, LS-3 | ||||||||||
Editing |
"F+" would've been a "D" on my old grading scheme, but it's apparent the translator's Japanese is pretty poor.There were quite a few idiom usages, but overall LS level is low due to a lot of stiff lines that were dictionary translations that were extremely awkward sounding.
The funniest part of this release is that they used Hadena release to TLC but still managed to be far worse (Doki line in next Ep preview vs Hadena line. Accurate translations would've been "How was onii-chan's performance today?" or "What did you think of onii-chan in action today?" That mistake is not even close to anything you can mishear for). Also this screenshot courtesy of Xythar lol |
Hatsuyuki | B, LS-6 | ||||||||||
Editing |
The translation in this release is quite accurate, and surprisingly, it's even more well-flowing than Commie, but nuance was absolutely horrible with things like "Great Fairy" instead of "Little Fairy" for "Fairy-san", "Yuu" instead "Eu" (her full name is "Eucliwood"), and a bunch of poor word choices.
It seems to be more polished (assuming editing wasn't what caused poor nuance), but I'm preferring Commie a bit more at this point. Can't really go too wrong with this release though. |
Medaka Box
Difficulty = 8; Technicals | *Updated April 15, 2012 |
SubDESU | F, LS-7 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Medaka Box may be an ecchi action anime, but it's still a difficult anime to translate. This show is far beyond this translator's capability, and the script turned into guesslation every time the dialog got too hard.
Creativity is good, but it should only be exercised after sufficient understanding of the source language/lines.Avoid this release. |
WhyNot | D+, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Editing |
The translation for this release could've been considered to be "decent" if it was for any other show, but NishioishiN adaptations require off-the-chart story comprehension skills to translate because it's necessary to understand the meaning behind what it actually being said under limited context.
There were nicely phrased lines here and there, but ultimately, this release failed to deliver. It's worth waiting few hours for the CR release. |
Crunchyroll | B-, LS-6 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Their simplification is a bit too much for my tastes (they need timers who know what they're doing so their translators have sufficient text length for each line), but there was a couple of extremely well-executed, well-interpreted lines to cover for it.
This is easily the release to pick if you want to know what's actually being said in this show. |
FFFine | D-, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Editing |
The translation for Ep1 was very poor, and some of the lines were suspiciously similar to SubDESU release. I also don't know how they can make such an elementary mistake of translating "kisama" as "you lowlifes" for every single instance even though it totally destroyed the nuance in context.
They're using CR subs starting Ep2, but I question any of these groups' ability to properly improve what CR had. |
Nazo no Kanojo X
Difficulty = 2; Technicals | *Updated April 11, 2012 |
SubDESU | B, LS-3 | ||||||||||
Editing |
This is an easy show to translate, but I wasn't expecting SubDESU to be able translate this well.Retention of Japanese sentence structure in a lot of lines was annoying, and perhaps "shit" used in not-so-harsh lines, but otherwise there wasn't really anything wrong with it. | ||||||||||
GotSpeed | B, LS-4 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Very uneven script. Some lines were best translated out of three available releases so far, but some were really awkward lines. | ||||||||||
Editing |
This release had the overall best script out of the three groups, but the major mistake was a possible context error, and there were quite a few lines I wasn't sure if it was over-interpretation or misunderstood context (but still worked).
I consider "Accuracy" to be the most important aspect even for easy drama/mystery series, so this is a tough call. Pick this group if you have high risk tolerance, pick whoever releases first if you're not. |
Crunchyroll | A, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Editing |
This is an easy show to translate, but watching this release gave me goosebumps because most lines were handled exactly the way I would've, if I was translating this series professionally/conservatively.Other than 3 or 4 text-length issues caused by major timing errors and a few negligible/preferential changes I might have made, the translation from CR is as good as one can expect for this show. |
Difficulty = 4; Technicals | *Updated April 7, 2012 |
Commie | C-, LS-8 | ||||||||||
"D-" would've been "C-" in my old grading scheme.There is a lot of misinterpretations in this release, but the accurate lines were translated very well.I'm not sure if they will rip and edit official subs starting next week, but their original translations for this series can't really be trusted. | ||||||||||
Editing |
This release also has many mistakes, but they were less severe than ones seen in Commie.The nuance was significantly worse, and I wasn't impressed with "bullshit" etc when the tone was nowhere even close to that harsh in context. |
Tasogare Otome x Amnesia
Difficulty = 6; Technicals | *Updated April 19, 2012 |
UTW-Underwater | B+, LS-6 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Most accurate release here, but I was really uncomfortable with the first half. Everything was interpreted differently as I would have lolThe second half was really well done, and overall, I think it's evenly matched with CR translation for this show. | ||||||||||
WhyNot | C, LS-2 | ||||||||||
Editing |
There were some interpretation errors, but it's watchable. However, it feels like they never edited it. There's some serious Engrish like "it can't be helped", and "For you to wander into a place like this" for "I can't believe you wandered in here."Not recommended. | ||||||||||
Crunchyroll | B, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Editing |
There were some mistakes in select lines, but other lines clicked really well for me. This would've been a solid release if they learned to time because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of excessive character per duration lines that were hard to read. | ||||||||||
Hadena | C-, LS-8 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Base translation for this release was probably average. I was really impressed with the editing in this release (they had some best lines out of all releases), but heavy editing is a double-edged sword. There were few over-interpretations that completely changed the meaning of what was actually being said. The end result is really bad translation that can fool non-Japanese speakers.Not recommended. | ||||||||||
Commie | B+, LS-8 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Two major mistakes from CR were fixed. A few English derps from CR was fixed, but there was a lot of edits that didn't improve the lines.Can't really go wrong with any of the three B-ranged releases. |
Uchuu Kyoudai
Difficulty = 4; Technicals | *Updated April 4, 2012 |
Crunchyroll | B, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Very good language, flow, consistency, and character nuance, but the translation here is extremely dodgey. A lot of details were missing or simplified for the sake of flow. | ||||||||||
Group_name | G+, LS-0 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Comments |
Difficulty = 5; Technicals | *Updated April 4, 2012 |
SFW (Viz Mod) | B+, LS-6 | ||||||||||
I can't watch Viz stream from where I live, but judging from subs from all three groups, the base translation was extremelystrong. In fact, I had to stop and add "in the name of justice" to my Epic Translations List. However, the base translation appeared to focus a bit too much on flow and nuance was a little bit neglected.SFW release was definitely the most heavily edited of the three, and I liked most of their changes (about 5:3 ratio compared to WhyNot). The language used appeared to sound more natural for lines that seemed better, and nuance was improved in some cases. | ||||||||||
WhyNot (Viz Mod) | B, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Compared with SFW script using diff. This release is relatively similar to SFW's release, but it felt a bit stiffer in comparison. Also, there were at least two typos that I detected by looking at the script, which shouldn't happen when you're editing a script meant to reduce these kind of errors. Timing for this release was improved over the base script though (more line breaks).Overall, the difference compared to SFW is negligible, and there shouldn't be problems with downloading whoever releases first. | ||||||||||
Hadena (Viz Mod) | B-, LS-5 | ||||||||||
Editing |
Compared with WhyNot's script using diff. There's some weird things in script like using 3 lower case "L"s "I'll", random capitalization of words, and other weird English errors. There's really no point downloading from the slowest RipEdit group with inferior subs. |


text:
Forum Guidelines:
Forum Guidelines: Here is the place where you can ask other members or the staff for help. If you have questions about a specific program, please just post those in the program thread. Please do not post referral links, personal sites or blog links in this section.
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Skin designed by IPB Forum Skins
FEATURED AD - NEW STATIC AD Advertisement Advertisement
monhyip.net VERY HIGH RCB
Make $200-$400 every week passively All HYIP monitors and HYIP programs. Choose best HYIP funds using one site If You Dont Make $1000 Your First Month I ll Paypal Accepted SecondsOld Early Bird Program Alerts! Get Paid to Join Websites Wenyardibo. Be a Boss, Earn Like a Boss. Love Money Maker Club Need More Leads-Ultimate List Building System We Do the Work And You Keep the Money 2%, 90+days, steady and paying Your ad here - Only $29.99/week!! |


text:
General Motors
News stories featuring General Motors and NFC:
GM demos NFC payments app for electric vehicle charging
November 21st, 2012
General Motors subsidiary OnStar is experimenting with NFC to initiate payment at public charging stations for electric vehicles. As more electric vehicles arrive on the market the demand for public charging will grow, as will... More
RIM shows Porsche 911 with NFC at Mobile World Congress
February 28th, 2012
A Porsche 911 that features NFC pairing functionality is on show at the BlackBerry stand at this week's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. For the demonstration, an NFC tag has been integrated into the vehicle,... More
World's top auto makers to work on putting NFC in cars
March 18th, 2011
Daimler, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota and Volkswagen have joined Nokia, Samsung and others as founder members of the Car Connectivity Consortium with the aim of developing common standards for connectivity between handsets and vehicles. More
Feed for stories featuring General Motors.
• Find a list of all the companies and other organisations that have been featured in NFC World in our directory.