Transcript Karen Amrhein July 29, 2013 Wildfire Insurance and Forest Health Task Force.

Karen Amrhein
July 29, 2013
Wildfire Insurance and Forest Health Task Force
Agenda
 My Background
 Implementation Framework of NFIP,
Map Mod and Risk MAP
 Mapping Insurance and Risk Overview
 Mapping Insurance - Lessons Learned
 Best Practices
Risk MAP, CAV, CRS, Ordinances, CTP, HMPs
 Actionable Risk Communication
 Thoughts from the 2013 Natural Hazards Workshop
My Background
NFIP
LOMA Analyst
Correspondence
Special Projects Team
Certified Floodplain Manager
Outreach Materials
Mapping Needs Assessment
Cooperating Technical Partners
Scope/Contract Development
Map/Funding Prioritization
Training
LOMA – Letter of Map Amendment
MAP MOD
CO/SD Map Mod Coordinator
CO Compliance
CO/SD/MT Map Scoping
RISK MAP
Discovery
Community Engagement
Resilience
Risk Reduction and
Local Action
Risk MAP – Mapping, Assessment, Planning
The NFIP
 Flood insurance provided to property and structure
owners in NFIP-participating communities
 Participating communities
 Adopt minimum floodplain development criteria
 Maintain permitting process for SFHA
 Insurance requirement for federally-backed mortgages
in SFHA
 Most disaster aid unavailable to non-participating
communities
NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program
SFHA – Special Flood Hazard Area
Implementation
Congressional
Funding
FEMA HQ
LOMAs
HQ
Contractors
Data Systems
LOMRs
Correspondence
Guidance and
Policy Support
Mapping
Mitigation
Planning & Grants
FEMA
Regions 1-10
Compliance
Regional
Contractors
Community Engagement
Cooperating
Technical
Partners
Regulatory Products (FIRM/FIS)
Risk MAP Non-Regulatory Products
Due Process
Mapping Project
Scope Development
Data Development
Preliminary Release
Comment Period
Final Map Development
Compliance Period
Effective Map
Insurance and Risk Mapping
Regulatory Data
FEMA is to provide flood insurance zone data, with some
Base Flood Elevations, to participating communities
 FEMA Study - Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports
 FEMA Modification - Physical Map Revision (PMR)
 Community - Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
 Homeowner - Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA)
Insurance Mapping Pitfalls
 Subsidized premiums don’t reduce risk
 Limited federal funding, many SFHAs are outdated
 FIRM places properties IN or OUT,
does not indicate level of risk
 Homeowner perspectives
 Not high risk = no risk
(Insurance infrequently purchased for non-SFHA areas,
even though 25% of claims are outside the SFHA)
 Insurance reduces mitigation efforts
 Maps are inaccurate
 General negative opinion of FEMA forcing insurance
SFHA – Special Flood Hazard Area
FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map
Data Pitfalls – The Levee Situation




Regulatory requirement on levees
Um, “ignored”
Risk data inaccurate in levee-protected areas
Response: Provisionally-Accredited Levee System (PALS)





Katrina brings national attention
Levee-protected citizens unite against increased premiums
Response: Levee Analysis Mapping Procedures (LAMP)
What’s next? We will see…
Takeaway
 Enforce regulations
 Stand by solid data
 Take steps to reduce “levee-protected” concept
Lessons Learned
 Map development is complex and involved
 Community engagement is important
 Buy-in means ordinance adoption
 Reduced high-level political involvement
 Increased local action efforts
 Increased local responsibility
 “Level of risk” data better than “in or out” data
 Enforce good data
Best Practices: Risk MAP
 Discovery
 Watershed-based
 Proactive engagement of “Whole Community”
 All hazards, all issues
Mapping, Mitigation, Communication, Training
 Capability Assessment
 Resilience Meetings
 Mitigation Planning and Action Conversation
 Action Metric – Local Action Support
 Pitfall – local responsibility?
 Non-Regulatory Data
 Flood Risk Map and Report
 Flood Risk Database
Areas of Mitigation Interest, Flood Depth Grids, Average Annualized Loss
Best Practice: CAVs
Community Assistance Visits
 Performed on State and Federal level
 Quality important to success
 One-on-one local program review
 Community Tour
 Ordinance conversation
 Floodplain development permitting process review
 Training and capability support
CRS Creditable Activities
Best Practice: CRS
Community Rating System
 Voluntary community
involvement
 Encourages local risk
reduction
 Insurance premium reduction
 Popularity increasing as
insurance subsidies
decreasing
300 Series - Public Information Activities
Elevation Certificates
Map Information Service
Outreach Projects
Hazard Disclosure
Flood Protection Information
Flood Protection Assistance
Flood Insurance Promotion
400 Series - Mapping and Regulations
Floodplain Mapping
Open Space Preservation
Higher Regulatory Standards
Flood Data Maintenance
Stormwater Management
500 Series - Flood Damage Reduction Activities
Floodplain Management Planning
Acquisition and Relocation
Flood Protection
Drainage System Maintenance
600 Series - Warning and Response
Flood Warning and Response
Levees
Dams
Best Practice:
Building Codes and Ordinances
 Insurance
 Essential for recovery
 Creates complacency rather than mitigation
 Ordinances and Building Codes
 Require local conversation (good thing)
 Require enforcement (resources)
 Can still be based on risk level
 Consistent
 Marketing approach could activate “The Joneses Factor”
Best Practice? CTPs
Cooperating Technical Partners
 Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
 State partners
 Mapping, outreach
 Local insight, trust, relationships (good)
 Program and technical knowledge (?)
 “It’s not what it is, it’s what it could be.”
 Leverage relationships
 Set higher standards
 Engage communities (counties) and facilitate dialogue
 “The Joneses Factor” (counties)
Best Practice? HMP
Hazard Mitigation Plan
 Locally-developed mitigation action plan
 Required for most disaster/mitigation grants
 Pitfalls – many contractor-developed
 Potential!
 Facilitate local dialogue
 Community-led risk reduction planning
 Local outreach program?
 “The Joneses Factor” (homeowners)
Actionable Risk Communication
 Communicating
Actionable Risk for
Terrorism and Other
Hazards, 2012,
(Michele Wood, Dennis
Mileti, and others)
 Research focuses on trying
to model the factors that
actually matter in
household readiness
What factors actually matter in
household readiness?
 “Although it feels good, our intuition about how to
motivate behavior change often misses the mark.”
 Not important: Level of Risk, Socio-economic status, geography
 Most important:
 The information received
 Especially telling what actions to take and
how those actions cut future losses
 Multiple sources, multiple channels, frequently repeated
 Milling
 Talking about getting ready with others
 Monkey See, Monkey Do (The Joneses Factor)
 Seeing others get ready is strongest motivation
Actionable Risk Communication
• Provide risk information
Milling • Places to go for more info
• Couple it with actionable items
Actions • “Here’s what you can do”
• Promote sharing
Sharing • Use examples from other communities
More Resilient Communities
Thoughts from
2013 Hazard Workshop
 People are not prepared
 Insurance reduces consumer effort to mitigate
 Subsidized insurance reduces success in risk reduction
 Mitigation Transfer Fee
 Perception: Not “high-risk” = “no risk”
 Important Message: Resilience is everyone’s
responsibility – local, household, individual
 Community resilience must be community-led
 Whole Community is essential
Questions and Discussion
Resilience is our responsibility.