Articles In This Issue

Virginia Assesses the Costs and Benefits of the CRS Program



The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards. The program incentivizes these activities by offering discounts on flood insurance premiums to policyholders in communities that participate in the program.

While the financial incentives to participate in the CRS can be great (policyholders can receive up to 45 percent off their premiums), many communities still opt not to get involved. Only 6 percent of eligible localities across the entire nation have chosen to participate in the CRS. One reason communities often cite for not participating is the cost – many don’t believe that the potential savings from flood insurance premium discounts will be significantly greater than what they will have to spend to comply with the CRS activities and staff the program. But, are those costs actually greater than the savings the locality would receive from participating?

To answer that question, Wetlands Watch, a regional environmental organization in Virginia, conducted a cost-benefit analysis based on 25 localities in the state that volunteered to be interviewed and share information about their CRS programs. Wetlands Watch interviewed local floodplain managers and other officials involved in the CRS program to examine how much each community saved on their premiums compared to how much they spent on staffing to maintain their status in the program. The methodology, results, and other information from their analysis were published in The Costs & Benefits of the CRS Program in Virginia.

Coordinators from across the state estimated the amount of time they spent on CRS projects so that Wetlands Watch could estimate the benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Some localities have a dedicated CRS Coordinator, whose sole job is to work on CRS-related projects, whereas other localities have one or more of their employees in existing positions spend a portion of their time on CRS tasks. A few communities did not disclose their estimated average time spent on CRS projects, so Wetlands Watch used the median estimated percentage of staff time from the other localities. Wetlands Watch then multiplied this percentage by the estimated CRS coordinator salary for the state to determine the estimated cost to the community of participating in the CRS program. The estimated CRS coordinator salary was approximated at $89,000 a year. This value accounts for staff in various positions with different levels of seniority and the varying costs of living across the state.

The results found that only 2 of the 21 communities analyzed measured negative BCRs. However, for both of those communities the median staff time of 13 percent had to be used. If the actual value was made available, the results may have been different. The average BCR among the 21 localities was 15:1, and the median was 8:1. The highest BCR was for the City of Norfolk, which saves approximately $68 for every $1 spent.

While the premium discounts were the only benefits measured to determine the BCR, the report does explore some of the secondary benefits of the CRS program. Seventeen of the localities interviewed discussed other benefits that the CRS program has had in their community. Almost all agreed that, because of the CRS, their communities have a better-informed citizenry, improved public safety, and better protection of property. The CRS coordinators generally agreed that there are definitive benefits to the CRS program in addition to the discounts.

Wetlands Watch also interviewed the localities about other barriers, besides cost, to participating in the CRS. They determined that a challenge the CRS faces is marketing the program to prospective communities, particularly those that have concerns about costs. This report makes it clear that the program benefits communities far more than it costs them, and this crucial information may encourage more localities to enroll in the CRS program. The report also compiled other barriers that coordinators listed as to why they did not initially enroll, and offers suggestions to help alleviate those concerns.

The report came out the same year that FEMA published the 2017 CRS Coordinator’s Manual. The new manual contains clarifications, updated information on how to join the CRS program, and several new ways to earn credits. If you are interested in joining the CRS or increasing your CRS class rank, and therefore your savings, the 2017 CRS Coordinator’s Manual has everything you need to know.

DC Water Redefines Resiliency 

The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) is the drinking water and wastewater utility for the nation’s capital. In addition to providing drinking water to residents of Washington D.C., the utility collects and treats wastewater from more than 2 million people in the capital and its suburbs. This feat of modern engineering relies on a vast system of pipes and pumping stations and one of the most advanced wastewater treatment plants in the world. More than 1,800 miles of pipes carry wastewater from a service area covering 275 square miles to the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant on the Potomac. Blue Plains is a 150-acre facility that treats nearly 300 million gallons of wastewater per day and has the capacity to treat more than one billion gallons per day. That volume of wastewater is difficult to conceptualize, but would keep the Niagara Falls flowing for more than 20 minutes.

With so many people relying on the Blue Plains treatment plant to provide such a critical service, resiliency is not an option but a necessity. The plant’s location at the lowest point in the capital along the tidal Potomac makes it particularly vulnerable to flooding and storm surge. A 1-percent-annual-chance flood would submerge most of the plant’s footprint, and a Category 5 hurricane would swamp nearly all the tanks, reactors, and expensive equipment needed for the wastewater treatment process. This vulnerability will only be exacerbated changing future conditions. Sea levels in the mid-Atlantic have risen almost 10 inches in the last 80 years, and sea levels in the D.C. region are rising even faster as the land sinks.

DC Water has moved aggressively to prepare for an uncertain future and protect the critical services that it provides. Recognizing the vulnerability of the Blue Plains plant to flooding, storm surge, and rising water levels, DC Water built a seawall along the facility’s perimeter and sized the seawall based on a highly conservative scenario. In 2013, DC Water’s board approved the construction of a 17.2-foot-high seawall, designed to protect the facility from the 0.2-percent-annual-chance storm with three feet of freeboard. The seawall will cost an estimated $13.2 million and is scheduled to be completed in 2021.

The utility has also taken the lead in identifying hazard mitigation strategies that meet sustainability goals. DC Water is the largest electricity user in DC. The Blue Plains plant alone requires 25 megawatts of power to pump, filter, aerate, and disinfect the hundreds of thousands of gallons of wastewater flowing through the facility each day. Relying on the city’s electric grid to supply all this power not only exposed the Blue Plains plant to the risk of power outages during extreme weather, but generated more than 100,000 metric tons of carbon emissions each year. To protect its electricity supply in an emergency and cut carbon emissions and energy costs, DC Water decided to invest in a 10-megawatt combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Completed in 2015 for a capital cost of $83 million, the CHP project provides over one-third of the Blue Plains plant’s energy needs and produces biosolids that are suitable for use in an urban setting. DC Water is also an innovator in green stormwater infrastructure, which was highlighted in the Winter 2017 issue of the Resilience Report. 

DC Water’s innovation in protecting its vulnerable critical facilities is a model for all of the region’s large utilities. By tying investments in sustainability to investments in resiliency, we can take “win-win” actions that minimize climate impacts while mitigating against natural hazards.

Resilient PA Initiative 

The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) developed the Resilient PA Initiative to enhance understanding of resilience and risk reduction methods throughout the Commonwealth to improve overall safety and well-being. The DCED defines resilience as, “The ability of the Commonwealth, its communities, organizations, and citizens to prepare for and rebound from shocks and stresses, recover quickly, and sustain and enhance our strength.” The current working policy draft will ultimately function as the guiding document that draws together a three-part approach of policy, education, and best practices to encourage greater inter-agency coordination and cooperation, which will foster resiliency throughout the Commonwealth and its communities. The Resilient PA working draft follows models outlined by Smart Growth America in their report, Building Resilient States: Profiles in Action.

The Resilient PA Initiative faces several challenges, including flooding, aging infrastructure, property loss, and dated land use and zoning policies in some communities across the Commonwealth. Additionally, mitigation strategies in Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) are not always incorporated into other local planning and land development practices. However, the DCED is taking recommendations from Building Resilient States: A Framework for Agencies , which emphasizes methods of smart growth. Smart growth is an approach that encourages compact, transit-oriented, walkable, and mixed-use development to avoid sprawl and promote resiliency through risk reduction. The following Smart Growth America recommendations have been adopted by the Resilient PA Initiative:

The Resilient PA Initiative also aims to highlight the Borough of Muncy as a model for community resilience in the Commonwealth. Muncy was selected because it faces the same challenges that impact hundreds of other small, rural communities throughout Pennsylvania. The Greater Muncy Resiliency Plan will identify projects, funding sources, and partners to help Muncy become the role model for resiliency in the Commonwealth. This will be accomplished by undertaking a community-wide, long-term recovery planning process and pursuing resiliency measures that address hazard impacts to vulnerable populations, the economy, and the environment. These measures will also be replicable in other communities throughout Pennsylvania that face similar risks, including flooding and property loss. Muncy officials have also entered into a contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin working on a study for nonstructural flooding solutions throughout Lycoming County. The study will focus on plans for management of stormwater systems, watersheds, floodplains, and riparian zone restoration. Lycoming County has also acquired $2,600,000 for its Floodplain Housing Remediation Program. This program aims to provide alternatives to buyouts through structural home elevations and basement evacuations throughout the Greater Muncy Area. Property owners that participate in the program have the potential to greatly reduce their flood insurance premiums.

The PA DCED, Lycoming County’s Planning and Community Development Department, and the Borough of Muncy have also established the Pennsylvania Resiliency Center of Excellence (COE). The COE will act as a non-partisan center for research and leadership training on resiliency and associated disaster prevention, recovery, and mitigation issues in Pennsylvania. Recently, the Muncy Borough Council voted to accept the generous contribution of John L. Bruch’s estate, the Mozley Opera House, to serve as the location for the COE. The former Ritz Theater, which is adjacent to the Mozley Opera House, is currently for sale and a place of interest to expand the COE. Ultimately, the mission of the Center is to bring the unique assets of the Commonwealth agencies, the Pennsylvania State University, and a network of national, state, and local leaders together to speak on behalf of issues related to hazard mitigation, resiliency planning, public health, and economic growth and development. The Pennsylvania Resiliency COE will achieve this through integrative research, education, and outreach.

The Resilient PA Initiative and the resiliency efforts in Lycoming County have created an innovative approach to serve as a model for community resilience, while showcasing how small rural communities can successfully design long-term recovery plans. Upcoming issues of the Resilience Report will continue to provide updates on the Resilient PA Initiative and will offer further tips on successful partnerships, resiliency, and mitigation solutions.

Flood Insurance Roundtable Held at FEMA Region III

FEMA Region III hosted a Flood Insurance Roundtable on November 30, 2017 at their offices in Philadelphia. This workshop provided an opportunity for Region III leadership in State Emergency Management, NFIP Coordinating Agencies and State Insurance Commissions in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to collaborate, build relationships across state and federal partners in risk reduction, promote the value of flood insurance, educate partners on what to expect following a large disaster event, and identify strategies or resources needed to implement risk reduction priorities.

Janice Barlow, Acting Division Director for Mitigation, welcomed everyone and expressed gratitude of participation from Mary Ann Tierney, Region III Administrator, who had recently been deployed to assist at the Joint Field Office in San Juan, PR. 

The workshop was facilitated by Kelly Bronowicz, Chief of Industry Management, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration from FEMA Headquarters in Washington, DC. Also on hand from FEMA HQ and serving as presenters were Paul Huang, Deputy Assistant Administrator and Dave Stearrett, Flood Insurance Advocate, both of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration.

Approximately 40-50 people were in attendance. Discussion topics during the morning session included:

Key themes that arose during these discussions included NFIP simplification, data sharing, messaging and affordability. 

The day-long program also featured formal presentations on various topics, including:

Following lunch, the afternoon was spent discussing the topic “Partnering to Increase Flood Insurance Coverage Nationwide”. One of the long-term goals of the NFIP is to double the number of flood insurance policies in force (through the NFIP and through private insurance carriers) during the next five years.

As follow up to this event, the representatives from FEMA HQ will be distributing to the participants improved outreach materials developed in response to the 2017 Hurricane Season. The State Partners committed to using these in various outreach strategies including targeted marketing, working through local emergency management, Public Service Announcements, on camera interviews with survivors of flooding events, etc. 

Feedback during and after the event was overwhelmingly positive, and there has been discussion of replicating this event in other FEMA Regions. 

Future follow-up events in Region III will include:

We look forward to meeting the challenge of significantly increasing flood insurance coverage through collaborative efforts during 2018 and beyond!

Best Practice: City of Charlottesville Water Resources Protection Program

The City of Charlottesville, Virginia has been striving to better manage its water resources and address stormwater regulations. To respond to these challenges, Charlottesville developed a Water Resources Protection Program (WRPP) to help the city comply with federal and state stormwater regulations, rehabilitate aging stormwater infrastructure, and address drainage and flooding issues throughout the community. A large portion of Charlottesville’s stormwater infrastructure requires rehabilitation; however, it is estimated to cost roughly $10 million to repair or replace 13+ miles of high-priority failed corrugated metal pipe and vitrified clay pipe in the city. As a result, having an enhanced stormwater management program that focuses on implementing green stormwater infrastructure and incentivizing practices that will reduce strain on the existing infrastructure will help minimize the need for major capital investment.

A major element of the WRPP has been the city’s adoption of a stormwater utility fee, which provides a stable funding source for the program. This fee is based on the amount of impervious surface on a property, such as parking lots, sidewalk, and roofs. Each 500 square feet of impervious surface that a property contains represents a billing unit, and each property’s stormwater fee is based on its number of billing units. The City of Charlottesville has a GIS Viewer, which allows property owners and other interested parties to view the current annual stormwater utility fee for a specific property. Under state law, revenue from stormwater utility fees must be placed in a fund that can only be used for stormwater management activities. Therefore, these fees pay for services such as:

The City of Charlottesville also offers several incentives for property owners to reduce their stormwater utility fee, such as the city’s Credit Program. Through this program, property owners can pursue a credit or reduction to their stormwater utility fee if they operate and maintain a stormwater management facility that reduces pollution or controls stormwater runoff. Facilities that can be implemented include bioretention facilities, permeable pavement, green roofs, and more. For more information about this program, please see the City of Charlottesville’s Stormwater Utility Fee Credits Manual. Property owners can also decrease their fee simply by reducing impervious surfaces on their property.

Stormwater management initiatives can accomplish a variety of objectives, such as improving water quality, reducing runoff, and minimizing the potential impacts of flash flooding. Communities throughout Region III have recognized these complementary benefits, such as the City of Philadelphia through its Green City, Clean Waters initiative and the District of Columbia through its RiverSmart Rebates Program. These programs are highlighted in the Spring 2017 and Summer 2017 issues of the Resilience Report, respectively. FEMA will continue to highlight innovative stormwater management programs and best practices in upcoming issues of the Resilience Report.

Spotlight: Best Practices for Risk Assessment

Building community resilience requires a comprehensive understanding of the places, properties, and people that are most at risk from natural hazards. Quantitative analyses can help communities understand the distribution of risk and then target resources towards the places and people that are most susceptible to damage and loss. One tool that is available to help communities understand natural hazard risk is FEMA’s Hazus program. In this edition of the Spotlight, we interviewed two regional experts on Hazus analysis to learn more about the tool and its applications.

Gerard (Gerry) Aiken, FEMA Region III’s GIS Specialist, is an experienced user of Hazus for mitigation planning and disaster response purposes. He also serves as a resource to communities throughout Region III on topics related to GIS and Hazus. We also spoke with Brandon Cramer, a GIS Analyst for Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions (formerly Amec Foster Wheeler) in Chantilly, Virginia. In this role, he works on FEMA Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) and Flood Risk Products in the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Q: First, could you tell us more about your experience with hazard mitigation planning?

Gerry: I joined FEMA nine years ago in the Response Directorate and transferred to the Mitigation Division in Region III about three years ago. At the time, I had a wealth of planning experience and training, but not mitigation planning experience. During my first year or two in the Mitigation Division, I learned about hazard mitigation and mitigation planning requirements from my colleagues, through reviewing plans, and by meeting with State Hazard Mitigation Officers (SHMOs). I have also taken Hazus classes and used Hazus during disaster response operations, although now I primarily use it for mitigation planning, project identification, and research. 

Brandon: As a GIS Analyst at the Wood Group, I’ve done a lot of floodplain mapping for areas in FEMA Region III. I’ve also done a lot of Hazus analyses of flood risk for the State of Maryland. Eventually, the results go to a variety of state agencies in Maryland, including the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA). My role is to do vulnerability or loss estimation – the technical side of determining what is at risk in a disaster.

Q: Gerry, could you tell us a bit more about using Hazus for disaster response?

Gerry: Hazus has several applications for response, and FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute (EMI) offers a course on this topic (E0179: Application of Hazus for Disaster Operations). An example of using Hazus for disaster response and operations would be to estimate the potential impacts of an approaching hurricane based on advisories and develop some response planning factors. This exercise can help set expectations, align resources, and inform where to move staff and resources in preparation of the storm.

Q: Credible risk assessments are key to building an effective mitigation plan. Based on your experience, what do Hazus loss estimates add to a risk assessment?

Brandon: They add quite a bit. For what we do with the State of Maryland, a lot of our losses are derived using local data – building footprints and parcel data. This local data provides an improved level of accuracy and precision in flood loss estimates. Basically, what you get is a detailed map of exactly which buildings are going to be impacted by the flooding, the depths of flooding in every building, and a level of dollar losses from the flooding. Compared to older methods or the generalized building stock, it’s a much higher level of precision and detail. Most of the time we analyze the 100-year flood, but we’ve also done the 500-year. It depends on how the stream was modeled and what kind of data is available. More often than not, it will be the 100-year flood.

Gerry: If a community has spent the time or has the resources to ensure that the data inputs can be updated with local data, that community can get more accurate results and ultimately a much better product than the out-of-the-box Hazus analysis. My biggest push for local communities, counties, and states using Hazus has been encouraging them to get the most refined data possible.

Q: In general, how does using local building data change Hazus results?

Brandon: I would just say that loss estimated using local building data tends to be significantly lower than loss estimated using generalized building stock data. In most cases, what we’ve observed in Maryland is that it is several times lower. This is because the generalized building stock assumes buildings are distributed evenly across the census block, but that is not true in most cases. For example, a census block might include areas of wetlands, but no one really lives in the wetlands area. The higher level of precision usually improves the loss estimates.

Q: Brandon, how is Maryland using the loss estimation results that you are helping to develop?

Brandon: First, a lot of counties and communities are putting these Hazus results into local Hazard Mitigation Plans. This gives communities a higher level of precision about what areas and what buildings are likely to be affected by floods and improves mitigation planning. For example, communities can also look at critical facilities and see which facilities are at risk and exactly what depth of flooding they may be exposed to. Second, the state is adding the Hazus results to mdfloodmaps.com to make them available online. This will help communities use the loss estimates to inform community planning and alert the public about where flood losses are most likely to occur. Finally, the state plans to add the Hazus results to the website of the Maryland Resiliency Partnership. The Resiliency Partnership is a group of public and private partners that have come together to support hazard mitigation, floodplain management, and coastal and climate resiliency. The Resiliency Partnership hopes to use the Hazus results to help the public visualize the impacts of flooding.

Q: What datasets do you need to add local building information to a Hazus analysis?

Brandon: The most important things you’ll need are a building footprint layer and a parcel layer with the assessed value of the buildings. There is a lot of other information that could improve your results – such as the materials used to make the building, the number of floors in the building, its square footage, and how high it is off the ground – but a lot of times that data is not available. If you go into the Hazus model you’ll have default values that you can use. The Hazus analysis includes all building types. This allows communities to get detailed loss estimates by land use type.

Gerry: I agree that building stock data, property values, tax assessment information, and critical infrastructure are among the most important datasets to have, although there are roughly 40 different attributes that can be updated with local data in the model.

Q: What kinds of skills and support do you need to become a Hazus user?

Gerry: Users will need some familiarity with GIS, and I would recommend taking E0190: Arc GIS for Emergency Managers for anyone unfamiliar with the software. It is also important to understand what you want to use Hazus for: do you want to become an expert Hazus user, or do you just want to understand what Hazus can and cannot do? I think it is helpful for most emergency managers to take a basic Hazus course to develop an understanding of its capabilities and limitations.

Brandon: Fundamentally you need some background in GIS, preferably using ESRI ArcGIS simply because that’s what the software is built on. Also, it is probably beneficial to know about flooding, flood frequencies, the production of depth grids, and that kind of thing, since those are inputs for the program. Finally, you would need a little bit of knowledge of parcel data so that you can put it in the Hazus format. I also think it would be crucial for someone working in a local government to be able to find a depth grid or some sort of flood model. We derive all our flood estimates from FEMA products. It’s important to note that you can generate some floodplains using elevation data along with FEMA floodplain boundaries.

Q: How can people who are interested in Hazus get started and learn more?

Brandon: I think people should start by going to FEMA’s Map Service Center and looking at Risk MAP reports and products. Then you can see what Hazus brings to the table and what kinds of information you get from using the program to determine flood losses. To learn more about Hazus itself, EMI offers Hazus courses. For the DC area, there are Hazus user groups that are run by FEMA and have monthly or quarterly calls. Once you are part of a Hazus user group, you can see what other people are using Hazus for and get ideas about how to use the program.

Gerry: I think it is important to attend a training at EMI. And I suggest locking in your seat as early as possible since classes can fill up. Learning Hazus in a classroom or group setting is a much more streamlined process, and it is easier to learn in that environment rather than trying to read instructions on a website or watch a tutorial video. Local Hazus user groups also have lists of certified instructors, and it’s possible to organize a local training if you have enough students, workstations, and GIS licenses.

Please contact Gerry Aiken at [email protected] with any questions or for more information about Hazus, For more information about upcoming Hazus training courses, please click here and visit EMI’s website. 

Note: The interview above has been edited.

Links, programs, or other information provided in the newsletter are not necessarily endorsed by FEMA and FEMA is not responsible for the accuracy of any links or information provided.