An Independent Assessment of Future Savings from Mitigation Activities

1. An Independent Assessment of Future Savings from Mitigation Activities Project Management Committee Meeting April 2, 2004

2. Project Status Report • Track A

3. Project Status Report (cont’d.) • Track B

4. Quality Control Process • Role of Internal Project Review Team • Overarching, strategic, global input • Ensure that we remain focused on the target • Quality checking function • Carried out for Track A by Track B Co-leader • Carried out for Track B by Track A co-leader • Increasing the level of effort for each accordingly • Proofing/technical editing • Carried out by technical editor consultant

5. Track A - Status of Process-related Grants Analysis

6. Track A – Estimation of the Benefits of Mitigation Processes

7. Track A – Other Progress • Assumptions and limitations • Data Management Plan (complete except worker field training) • Reconciliation of methodological differences with CBO

8. Track A - Assumptions

9. Track A – Assumptions (cont’d.)

10. Track A – Assumptions (cont’d.)

11. Track A - Limitations

12. Track A – Limitations (cont’d.)

13. Track A – Limitations (cont’d.)

14. Track A – Limitations (cont’d.)

15. Sample size

16. New sampling scheme i.e., select 1 mitigation from each of Nequal-count substrataof mitigations sorted by cost Scheme A (orig.) i.e., select 1 mitigation from each of Nequal-cost substrataof mitigations sorted by cost Scheme B (new)

17. Processes sampled, by count

18. Sampling + benefit-est. scheme • 2 sampling schemes • x2 ways to scale up to stratum benefit • Apply sample-average benefit • Apply sample-average BCR • Use sampling & scale-up scheme with: • Unbiased estimate of stratum benefit • Minimum uncertainty of stratum benefit

19. Tests of 4 schemes “Bias” means avg error of benefit from selecting 25 mitgigation efforts from NEMIS, assuming correct benefit “Uncertainty” means standard deviation of error “Error” means fractional diff between true & estimated pop benefit

20. Summary of new sampling scheme • New selection & scale-up scheme • Prefer high-cost mitigations • Yet sample low, medium, & high cost • Use sample-mean BCR for stratum benefit • Internally QC’d; informed 2 PMC people • Sample of 25/stratum yields unbiased, low-uncertainty benefit estimate

21. Recent obstacles • Cutoff date • 1st sample: no cutoff date • 2nd sample: exclude mitigations approved < 1/1/1994 • 3rd sample: exclude only HMGP for disasters < 993 • PI • 1st sample: excluded because no peril available • 2nd sample: included based on ATC-assigned main peril • 3rd sample: included based on FEMA-assigned main peril • 36 of 105 process samples are PI • Flood hazard severity • 1st sample: no flood hazard because • Lack of 500-yr FP maps • HAZUS-based assignments would have been too costly • 2nd sample: severity via stream and coastal distance

22. Track B Status

23. Track B - Variables Associated With Successful Hazard Mitigation Programs

24. Track B – Synopsis of Hayward Community Study • BCA of 4 HMGP grants indicates that Hayward benefited by $10 in direct and indirect benefits along with $80 in spin-off benefits for every dollar invested by FEMA. • The total benefit-cost ratio for all public and private activities associated with HMGP grants is estimated to be 4.9. • Following Loma Prieta, a Hayward Hazardous Building Mitigation Task Force developed a seismic program that included the award of 4 HMGP grants and the initiation of 2 significant spin-off activities, the creation and implementation of ordinances requiring the seismic retrofit of all tilt-up buildings and unreinforced masonry structures. • An estimated 282 privately owned buildings have been retrofitted at an estimated private cost of $53.4M (2002 dollars), 17.2 times the amount that was initially invested by FEMA ($3.1M in 2002 dollars) for all HMGP grant expenditures evaluated.

25. Track B – Study Process • Contacts were made with the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for their insights into mitigation activities in Hayward and for the names of potential interviewees. • FEMA initiated a conference call with mitigation personnel at FEMA Region IX to obtain their cooperation in supplying files for the 4 HMGP grants • A letter was sent from FEMA to the community and the State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) notifying them of the study and requesting their assistance. • Field visits to both the FEMA Region IX office and SHMO were made to obtain copies of relevant documents for the four HMGP grants. • With the help of the community representative, interviews were set up and the arrangements for the community visit were undertaken. • Telephone interviews began with the name of the contact person and names of others provided by the SHMO, the FEMA region, the CSSC, and ABAG. • ATC made a community visit to collect additional data, to discuss the chronology of events to prepare the Inference Map, and to find additional people for interviews. • Telephone interviews were conducted. • Benefit-cost analysis was completed.

26. Track B – Inference Map

27. Track B - HMGP Grants Awarded to Hayward

28. Track B - Summary of Cost Estimates (2002 Dollars) for HMGP Grants

29. Track B - Cost Per Sq. Ft. Estimates for Seismically Upgrading and Replacing URMs and Tilt-up Structures

30. Track B - Estimated Seismic Upgrade Costs for Sampled Seismic Retrofits for Masonry and Tilt-up Structures

31. Track B - Annualized Dollar Estimates of Benefits

32. Track B - Summary of Benefit-Cost Estimates for the 4 Main Mitigation Activities in Hayward