1. FEMA Region VIII Reducing Losses through Higher Regulatory Standards 2013 Colorado Floods Case Study May 2015 HMTAP HSFEHQ-09-D-1129 / 14-J-0003

2. Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Overview Losses Avoided Study Comparison of two damage scenarios The losses before and the losses after a regulation was enacted A losses avoided study strives to answer the question: What would have happened if this measure wasn’t implemented? Can a dollar value be put on the savings? Best Practices Report Mitigation measures effective in reducing flood damages and economic losses 2

3. Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Summary of the 2013 Colorado Floods Widespread notable event NOAA determined that the event was a maximum 1,000-year rainfall event Unprecedented rainfall resulted in catastrophic flooding In four days, more than 17 inches of rainfall was recorded in Boulder County Rainfall amounts across the impacted area, majority of intense rainfall was in the three study counties – Boulder, Larimer, and Weld 3

4. Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards4

5. Loss Summaries – SBA, IA and NFIP Total 2013 Colorado event losses determined from Federal assistance programs National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Individual Assistance (IA) Program Small Business Administration (SBA) Includes verified program losses for Boulder, Larimer and Weld counties SBA NFIP IA $200 million Boulder, Larimer and Weld Counties 5

6. Loss Summaries – IA Losses in Basements 6Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Boulder Larimer $12 million Weld Total basement only losses Includes losses in properties that reported a flood high water mark in the basement More than 6,500 properties IA claims 51% of the applications were for basement only losses Basement only losses are 22% of the total IA losses More than 93% of basement only claims were located outside of the SFHA Boulder, Larimer and Weld Counties

7. Loss Summaries – Erosion 7Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Can the losses due to erosion be quantified? Aerial imagery was used to identify structures 34 found Most were located in Jamestown (Boulder County) Total FEMA IA verified losses were $1.48 million Erosion damage in Jamestown, Colorado

8. Loss Summaries – Letter of Map Change 8Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Were LOMA, LOMR-F, and LOMC structures impacted? LOMCs effectively remove the requirement for flood insurance for the structure LOMA: Letter of Map Amendment LOMR-F: Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill LOMC: Letter of Map Change Boulder, Larimer, and Weld had structures with LOMAs and LOMR-Fs that had IA, SBA, and/or NFIP claims Average losses of structures with LOMCs are relatively low when compared to structures without LOMCs

9. Summary of the 2013 Colorado Floods – Types of Flooding Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards9 Alluvial fans - formed in mountainous regions by floodwater that fans out when it reaches the valley Flash flooding - fast moving, deep floodwaters with potential to cause channel migration Riverine - floodwaters overflow stream channel banks, which may cause erosion and scour Riverine Flooding - Example of Scour Alluvial Fan Flooding - Example of Debris Flash Flooding - Example of Channel Migration

10. Summary of 2013 Colorado Floods - What’s Unique About This Study? The nature of the event and the impacted communities provided ample data to look at a range of floodplain management practices Differences in floodplain management practices among communities provided an opportunity to compare and contrast effectiveness of the practices 10 Channel Migration in Longmont, CO Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards

11. Regulatory Losses Avoided Study (LAS) – Phase I: Study Area Selection 11Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards 3 counties selected (Boulder, Larimer, Weld) and 43 jurisdictions

12. CO Losses Avoided Data Summary (Boulder, Larimer, Weld) IA: 21,442 applicants, $56M FVL NFIP: 1,769 claims, $51M SBA: 1,832 applicants, $91M Structure Points (363K) Building Area/Value Year Built Foundation Type Num Stories, etc HWMs, event and regulatory depth grids, soil erosion/deposition

13. Flood Extent Depth Grid Creation and Loss Estimation Data LiDAR High Water Marks Post-Event Imagery Analysis Event and Regulatory Depth Grids Losses Event losses (IA, NFIP, SBA) Model scenarios using GIS and Hazus

14. Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Regulatory Losses Avoided Study (LAS) – Phase I: Project Development Select regulatory standards to evaluate Define scenarios RegulationScenario Floodplain developmentNo development allowed in SFHA Floodway developmentNo development allowed Critical facility sitingNo development allowed in SFHA Freeboard1)Implemented earlier 2)Not implemented at all 3)Higher or lower freeboard Erosion setbackNo development allowed Freeboard 14

15. Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Regulatory Losses Avoided Study (LAS) – Phase I: Project Development Created geospatial modeling tools to prepare, analyze, and export the data Data Preparation Tool Data Export Tool Data Analysis Tool Data Preparation Tool: prepares the data for analysis and if structure data are incomplete, utilizes assumptions to estimate values for foundation type and building square footage 15

16. Regulatory Losses Avoided Study (LAS) – Phase I: Project Development 16Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Data Analysis Tool: runs scenarios using 100-year flood and 2013 flood event data plus regulatory information to estimate regulatory losses avoided

17. General BuildingContentsDisplacement Loss of function Social and Environmental Mental stress and anxiety Loss of productivity Environmental Regulatory Losses Avoided Study (LAS) – Phase I: Project Development 17Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Define general and social and environmental benefits to use to quantify losses Assign benefits to scenarios Benefits Evaluated Benefit Cost Variables Building Occupancy Type Depth Damage Functions Number of Occupants Benefit Factors

18. Scenario: Freeboard 18Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards Regulation Freeboard Three freeboard scenarios 1.Freeboard regulated earlier 2.Freeboard not regulated 3.Freeboard regulated to a higher or lesser standard Criteria SFHA structures Freeboard Concept

19. Scenario: What if No Freeboard IN THE 2013 FLOOD EVENT Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards19 Damage reductions from existing freeboard regulations in the 2013 event: $136 million in Boulder County $1.8 million in Larimer County $0.9 million in Weld County

20. Scenario: Freeboard Increased by 2 Feet IN THE 2013 FLOOD EVENT Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards20 If freeboard was increased by 2 feet, there would be a decrease in estimated losses of over 74% in Boulder, Larimer and Weld Counties in the 2013 flood event

21. Scenario: No Freeboard IN THE 100-YEAR FLOOD EVENT Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards21 Damage reductions from existing freeboard regulations in the 100-year event: $1.5 billion in Boulder County $71 million in Larimer County $73 million in Weld County

22. Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards22 Elevation with Freeboard and Stream Setbacks Estes Park has proactive standards that provided protection in the 2013 floods Required freeboard of 1 foot with recommended freeboard of 2 to 3 feet above 100-year flood Stream setbacks in land use code Floodplain development restrictions Case Study Left - Estes Park business owner next to his building that was not damaged in the 2013 flooding due to elevating the structure. Right - View behind elevated structure looking at the Big Thompson River during the 2013 flood. Best Practice - Freeboard

23. Scenario: Floodplain Development Restrictions - Best Practices Channel Improvements Longmont, Left Hand Creek Channel Improvement Project Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) project Improved channel design: Reduced the size of the SFHA Removed more than 100 homes from the SFHA Project cost = $5.7 million Total losses avoided in 2013 event = $22 million ROI = 3.91 23 Case Study Left Hand Creek Channel Improvement Project in Longmont, Colorado Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards

24. Scenario: Floodway Development Restrictions Regulation No development permitted in the floodway Criteria Structures located in the floodway 24Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards CountyTotal number of floodway structures Boulder523 Larimer444 Weld90 Typical Riverine Floodplain Cross Section Showing the Floodway

25. Scenario: No Floodway Development IN THE 100-YEAR FLOOD EVENT Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards25 Most (59%) of the total losses avoided are in Larimer ($64 million) Larimer has the greatest number of impacted floodway structures, with twice as many acres considered floodway parcels than Boulder or Weld

26. Regulatory LAS Summary - Floodway Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards26 Floodway Development Restrictions Poudre River Acquisition and Open Space Preservation in Fort Collins’ 100-year floodplain 55 acres of parks 924 acres of natural areas 979 acres out of 1,485 of floodplain acres preserved within city limits Two-thirds (66%) of the 100-year floodplain preserved as open space Very minor damage in Fort Collins from 2013 flood (50-year RI event) Case Study Open Space preserved in McMurry Natural Area and Legacy Park along the Poudre River in Fort Collins reduced flood impacts in the September 2013 event.

27. Best Practice Scenario: Outreach Projects Communities that participate in the NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS) can qualify for insurance premium discounts Reviewed outreach score of Community Rating System (CRS) communities in study area to determine any correlation between NFIP policies, claims, and CRS score for outreach projects (c330 score) 27 CRS Communities Boulder County – CRS Class 7City of Louisville – CRS Class 8 City of Boulder – CRS Class 5City of Fort Collins – CRS Class 4 City of Longmont – CRS Class 8City of Loveland – CRS Class 7 Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards

28. Best Practice Scenario: Outreach Projects - Key Findings Communities with higher outreach scores tend to have more NFIP policy holders and reduced average claims Successes and challenges Success influenced by variety of factors Increased awareness of flood risk City of Boulder and Fort Collins particularly successful 28Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards

29. Summary – Best Practices Adding two feet of freeboard yields the highest benefits Offers the largest general category benefits Floodplain development restrictions yields the second highest benefits Offers the largest social and environmental benefits 29

30. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Reducing Losses Through Higher Regulatory Standards 30