Topics To Be Covered

1. Topics To Be Covered • Original assumptions about developing models with HAZUS • Tulsa Pilot Study & Community Studies • What worked • What did not work • Unexpected findings • Mitigation activities • Limitations in HAZUS • Track B’s new discoveries and contributions • Limitations in Track B modeling • Summary

2. Assumptions • HAZUS would be capable of modeling the direct and indirect losses associated with earthquake, hurricane and flood risks. • Local data could be combined with NEMIS data and entered into HAZUS to model the costs and benefits of mitigation activities. • Synergistic activities could be identified and evaluated with HAZUS for hurricane vulnerabilities, flooding in riverine basins, and flood vulnerability models.

3. Tulsa Pilot StudyWhat Worked • Cost data were found in the community. • HAZUS isolated riverine basin model successfully used.

4. Community StudiesWhat Worked • HAZUS hurricane vulnerability models successfully used in conjunction with national wind velocity probabilistic models. • HAZUS successfully used to estimate earthquake direct losses.

5. Tulsa & Community StudiesWhat Did Not Work as Planned • Identification of synergistic activities is complex. • Spin-offs • Allied (collateral) activities • The need for indirect loss estimation has been minimal.

6. Tulsa & Community StudiesWhat Did Not Work as PlannedUnexpected Mitigation Activities • Structural flood mitigations • Tornado risks • Debris flow risks • Chlorine releases • Underground flood risks to wastewater and storm drain systems • Central business district spillover effects. • Other local flood risks that are challenging to model

7. Track B’s New Discoveries • Developing a coarse default model for flood losses to model numerous sites in three flood basins using flow data embedded in HAZUS. • Attempting to model various structural mitigations (e.g., diversion structures, berms). Serves as a vanguard for Track A evaluations

8. Track B Limitations that Result from New Discoveries • Maturity of the risk evaluation tools available in HAZUS varies enormously and, as a result, • Reliability of quantitative results will vary depending on the maturity of risk evaluation tools. • Uncertainties for immature risk evaluations are very great. Compare, for example, earthquake direct losses with debris flows and chlorine releases

9. Track B Limitations that lead to New Discoveries • The fact that Track B has identified mitigation activities that had not been identified by or modeled in HAZUS means that: • Key parameters and their influence on outcomes have had to be evaluated; and • The relative maturity of risk evaluation procedures available in HAZUS can be evaluated.

10. SummaryTrack B Quantitative Modeling • As planned, Track B is using HAZUS models when they are mature. • Track B has devised methods for evaluating synergistic activities. • In many cases, it has been necessary to develop credible models before analyses can be conducted. • Some of these new models assist in Track A’s more global quantitative evaluation.

11. SummaryTrack B Quantitative Modeling continued • New models will have varying degrees of reliability. • All models can be subjected to multiple sensitivity evaluations with immature models subjected to more evaluations. • Thus, only major parameters will be considered in sensitivity evaluations. • The credibility of all models will be indicated.