Aggregate Risk Reduction Scoping Project

1. Aggregate Risk Reduction Scoping Project • Project Team: • Gavin Smith, PI-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill • John Whitehead, Co-PI-Appalachian State University • Nikhil Kaza, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill • Jae Park, URS Corporation, CHC Advisory Board Member • Randy Kolar, Oklahoma University • Dylan Sandler, Research Associate, CHC • Eric Thomas, Master’s student, UNC City and Regional Planning

2. Project Overview • This project entails the development of a multi-disciplinary scoping project that will identify those variables and conditions necessary to assess aggregate flood hazard risk reduction at the community and regional scale. • This project will identify the data and techniques /models (including economic, hydrologic, land use, and mitigation measures) required to perform the assessment, recognizing that communities possess differing levels of technical capability and access to data. The scoping project will be developed to account for varied capabilities at the local or community level. • Are we making a difference in our efforts to reduce exposure/vulnerability? Genesis for idea emerged following Hurricane Floyd in 1999.

3. Project Relevance to DHS S&T Mission/Impact of Project • Past studies of hazard mitigation planning and policy have assessed the benefits of hazard mitigation activities by reviewing individual projects (e.g. the relocation or elevation of flood prone properties out of the floodplain, hardening infrastructure to withstand storm surge, etc.). The Congressionally-appointed Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC) found a return on investment of 4 to 1 when assessing individual hazard mitigation projects funded by FEMA. • While the MMC study demonstrated the merits of hazard mitigation on a project-by-project basis a number of critical factors were not addressed. 1) The MMC study did not consider existing and projected development in the surrounding area and how that affects hazard exposure and differing levels of vulnerability by population type (including social vulnerability). 2) The MMC approach did not account for changes in the hazard itself (e.g. changes in hydrology, shifting shorelines, etc.), which can lead to a significant increase in hazard vulnerability and the likelihood of future disasters. • As a result, federal and state emergency management officials (who may spend hundreds of millions of dollars in pre- and post-disaster hazard mitigation funding outlays) as well as community officials responsible for reducing hazard vulnerability remain unable to assess their overall or “aggregate risk” nor changes to this level of risk over time.

4. Technical Approach • The information needed to complete Phase I will be accomplished through the hosting of technical experts at face-to-face meetings, workshops, and conference calls, the review of existing studies, and the feedback of end-users. • This information will be compiled and used by the project team to develop a scoping document that: 1) identifies the data needed to conduct an analysis, 2) describes the process used to conduct the analysis, 3) assesses the level of technical sophistication and cost needed to conduct the analysis, and 4) defines specific outputs the process would produce. The scoping document will be developed to reflect the varied access to data and capabilities of three types of communities (high, moderate, and low), thereby increasing its applicability. • Meetings and conference calls will be held with invited participants to extract their collective knowledge and experience tied to their area of expertise, share information across disciplines, and devise a conceptual aggregate risk assessment approach. These meetings and calls will also help to: 1) define the scope and nature of the analytical model, 2) identify existing and needed data to perform the analyses, and 3) develop a scoping document based on the work of the group and the feedback of end-users.

5. Progress to Date • Literature Review • Identification of Hydrologic, Economic, and Land Use Models • Identification of Data Requirements • Two team meetings held (December 2012, January 2013)

6. Literature Review

7. Identification of Hydrologic, Economic, and Land Use Models

8. Data • Across model types • Across community/regional capability • Low • Moderate • High

9. Current Translation Activities and End Users • Advisory Group (combination of researchers and practitioners) • Dave Canaan, Charlotte/Mecklenburg County Stormwater Services • John Dorman, North Carolina Division of Emergency Management • Chris Crew, North Carolina Division of Emergency Management • Gerry Galloway, University of Maryland (CHC Advisory Board member) • Todd Davison, NOAA, Coastal Services Center (CHC Advisory Board) • John Pine, Appalachian State University (CHC Advisory Board) • Phil Ganderton, University of New Mexico (Member of MMC study team) • Craig Landry ECU, Professor, East Carolina University • Darrin Punchard, AECOM • (suggestion from Roy Wright) FEMA • Chad Berginnis, ASFPM, Director • Share findings with FEMA, professional associations, academic community • Report, briefings with FEMA officials (coordinate with Roy Wright) • Conference presentation (Hazards Workshop, APA, ASFMP) • Integrate With IHRM (North Carolina and elsewhere?) • Inform NSF study being proposed by Berke, Peacock, Luettich

10. Products/Translation • Aggregate risk conceptual framework • Scoping document report • Collaboration with NC IHRM, iRISK (IHRM committee member) • Future multi-disciplinary; university, federal/state agency, local, private sector team

12. Looking Forward • Complete the identification and critique of appropriate models • Determine how the models may be coupled • Complete the identification of data needed to assess aggregate risk across differing community types • Write up findings in a project report • The scoping project represents the first step in what we believe will be a multi-year study leading to: • 1) the development of a detailed analytical model that is used to assess aggregate risk reduction before and after flood disasters, • 2) testing the model in differing communities and refining the approach based on the results, and • 3) developing how-to-guides that will inform FEMA, states, and local governments as to how this analytical process can be performed by practitioners.