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 Study What Worked Cost data were found in the community. HAZUS isolated riverine basin model successfully used.

4. Community Studies What 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 Studies What 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 Studies What Did Not Work as Planned Unexpected 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. 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). Procedures to evaluate tornado risks. Track B’s Serves as a vanguard for Track A evaluations

8. 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. Track B Limitations that Result from Compare, for example, earthquake direct losses with debris flows and chlorine releases

9. 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. Track B Limitations that lead to

10. Summary Track 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. Summary Track B Quantitative Modeling New models will have varying degrees of reliability. All models are subject to multiple sensitivity evaluations; credible immature models must be more rigorously examined. Obtaining constructive, first-cut answers for brand new models is very time-consuming and does not allow for extensive sensitivity analysis. Thus, only major parameters will be considered in sensitivity evaluations. The credibility and maturity of all models will be indicated. See John Wiggins, American Lifelines Alliance, 2002; now part of NIBS. continued