Land Economics 94:2, May 2018 Flood Risk, Local Hazard Mitigation, and the Community Rating System of NFIP, by Jingyuan Li and Craig E.

Similar documents
CRS State Profile: Wyoming

CRS State Profile: Alaska

CRS State Profile: Connecticut

CRS State Profile: Ohio

CRS State Profile: Massachusetts

CRS State Profile: Indiana

Community Rating System. National Flood Insurance Program

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) Together North Jersey Resilient Task Force Meeting

10/5/2015. What Makes a Sound Floodplain Management Program? What are the Flood Problems in your Community?

FEMA FLOOD MAPS Public Works Department Stormwater Management Division March 6, 2018

What are the savings? An Assessment of the National Flood Insurance Program s (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS)

CRS State Profile: Texas

CITY OF PLANTATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM NO

Community Resilience & NFIP s Community Rating system

COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS) October 28, 2013

Floodplain Management Plan

National Flood Insurance Program s Community Rating System:

ROI for Joining CRS. Floodplain Management Association Conference. Sacramento, CA. September 2016

CRS State Profile: New Jersey

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Community Rating System: A Comparative Analysis

TIPS FOR PREPARING TO JOIN SYSTEM THE COMMUNITY RATING. Kristin Owen, AICP, CFM. VFMA Fall Workshops

Role of Disaster Insurance in Improving Resilience: An Expert Meeting The Resilient America Roundtable

AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 50: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT

Flood Risk Outreach Tools for Georgia Communities. GAFM 10 th Annual Conference Presented By: Jarrett Mattli

The National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System: An Introduction and Discussion of the RDO Role. October 2, :00-3:15 pm ET

Flood Plain Management Services (FPMS) Program

CRS UNIFORM MINIMUM CREDIT CALIFORNIA

MUNICIPAL LAND USE STRATEGIES for Improving Flood Resilience

Flooding. Frequent occurrence. Can be severe and result in significant property damage. Major risk

SECTION V THE LOCAL MITIGATION STRATEGY BLUEPRINT

Using GISWeb to Determine Your Property s Flood Zone

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Michael Taylor, PE, CFM Project Manager, AECOM August 25, 2015

ASFPM Partnerships for Statewide Mitigation Actions. Alicia Williams GIS and HMP Section Manager, Amec Foster Wheeler June 2016

Leveraging the Community Rating System for Climate Adaptation. Southeast and Caribbean Climate Community of Practice Webinar Series 23 March 2015

Changes in Criteria and Scoring for CRS Outreach Projects

Questions about the National Flood Insurance Program

Crediting Adaptation Strategies through the National Flood Insurance Program s Community Rating System Coordinator s Manual

CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

Community Incentives for Nature-Based Flood Solutions

The Changing NFIP, the CRS & Local Governments. Scott Pippin, J.D., M.E.P.D.

BACKGROUND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT DEVELOPMENT ADOPTION OF THE H-GAC HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN/UPDATES MISSION STATEMENT

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

LEARNING OVER TIME FROM FEMA S COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS) AND ITS LINK TO FLOOD RESILIENCE MEASUREMENT

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

The National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate Map for San Francisco. Presentation at Treasure Island Community Meeting

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Chapter 7 Appendix B: National Flood Insurance Program Summary for Kaua'i County, 2015 Update

Floodplain Management Assessment

Chehalis River Basin Basin-Wide Floodplain Management Assessment

A Flood Mitigation Plan for the Non-Tidal N.J. Section of the Delaware River Basin. Warren County Planning Workshop (2 nd Meeting) March 7, 2007

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

*How Federal Policy. Causes Flood Disasters. Leslie A. Bond, CFM LA Bond Associates

CITY OF VESTAVIA HILLS

Volusia County Floodplain Management Plan 2012

COMMUNITY CERTIFICATIONS

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Many of the changes to the NFIP were recently revised on March 21, 2014 by the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014.

Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Kankakee County, Illinois Executive Summary

REAL ESTATE FLOOD DISCLOSURE PROGRAM & FLOOD MAP INFORMATION SERVICES

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Federal Flood Insurance Changes (National Flood Insurance Program NFIP)

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT. MUNICIPAL PROFILE

The National Flood Insurance Program A Model for Risk Management

Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program What to Expect

Abington Township Public Meeting

David A. Stroud, CFM AMEC Earth & Environmental Raleigh, NC

CRS 2013: New Activities, New Opportunities. What Is CRS? How To Join Changes from Outreach Projects 430 Higher Regulatory Standards

Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program What to Expect

National Flood Insurance Program BW-12

Floodplain Management 101. Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Management Bureau

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Biggert-Waters Act 2012 (BW12)

National Flood Insurance Program Making Sense of April 2019 Changes

in coordination with Peoria County, Planning and Zoning Department

Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.

Mitigation Action Plan Alamance County

C APABILITY A SSESSMENT

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Appendix 1 Kick off meeting

Attachment B. King County Flood Control Zone District Work Program

Pinellas County Local Mitigation Strategy Progress Report

Mitigation Works. 0 With its devastating combination of water, mud, and sewage, the damages caused by flooding are particularly wrenching.

On March 21, 2014, President Obama signed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 into law.

Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana Flood Insurance Study Update Risk Analysis March 3, Shona Gibson Project Monitor, FEMA Region VI

5/25/2017. So why don t more communities participate in the Community Rating System (CRS)? Agenda. What is CRS? Community Rating System

Thurston County, WA Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan Annual Progress Report CRS Activity 510

This survey is expected to take approximately 20 minutes and must be completed in one session.

State of South Carolina Five-Year Floodplain Management Work Plan

How Does Flood Insurance Work?

HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN POINT OF CONTACT MUNICIPAL PROFILE

Action Items for Flood Risk Management on Wildcat Creek Interagency success with floodplain management plans and flood forecast inundation maps

Abstract COMMUNITY FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION AND THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. Jingyuan Li.

Gerard S. Mallet, Local Mitigation Strategy Coordinator FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

CRS UNIFORM MINIMUM CREDIT NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CENTRAL REGION MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. Advisory Committee Meeting September 12, 2012

9.46 NAZARETH BOROUGH

Transcription:

APPENDIX Table A1. Community Rating System Activities and Credit Scores Series Description Creditable Activities Points 1. Elevation Certificates 162 Public Information (300) CRS will credit those local activities that advise people about the flood hazard, flood insurance, and flood protection measures. 2. Map Information 140 3. Outreach Projects 380 4. Hazard Disclosure 81 5. Flood Protection Information 102 6. Flood Protection Assistance 71 Mapping and Regulations (400) Flood Damage Reduction (500) CRS provides credit to communities that enact and enforce regulations that exceed the NFIP s minimum standards so that more flood protection is provided for new development. This series of activities addresses flood damage to existing buildings. It complements the previous series that dealt with preventing damage to new development. 1. Additional Flood Data 1,346 2. Open Space Preservation 900 3. Higher Regulatory Standards 2,740 4. Flood Data Maintenance 239 7. Stormwater Management 670 1. Floodplain Management Planning 359 2. Acquisition and Relocation 3,200 3. Flood Protection 2,800 4. Drainage System Maintenance 330 Flood Preparedness (600) Activities in this series include actions that should be taken to minimize the effects of a flood on people, property, and building contents. Source: NFIP, CRS Coordinator s Manual (2007). 1. Flood Warning Program 225 2. Levee Safety 900 3. Dam Safety 175

Table A2. CRS Credit Points Earned, Classification Awarded, and Premium Reductions Score Credits Discount in SFHA* Discount in non-sfha** 1 4,500+ 45% 10% 2 4,000 4,499 40% 10% 3 3,500 3,999 35% 10% 4 3,000 3,499 30% 10% 5 2,500 2,999 25% 10% 6 2,000 2,499 20% 10% 7 1,500 1,999 15% 5% 8 1,000 1,499 10% 5% 9 500 999 5% 5% 10 0 499 *Special Flood Hazard Area **Preferred Risk Policies are available only in B, C, and X zones for properties that are shown to have a minimal risk of flood damage. The Preferred Risk Policy does not receive premium rate credits under the CRS because it already has a lower premium than other policies. The CRS credit for AR and A99 zones is based on non-sfhas (B, C, and X). Credits: scores 1 6 = 10 percent; scores 7 9 = 5 percent. Premium reductions are subject to change. Source: NFIP, CRS Coordinator s Manual (2007).

Table A3. Estimation Results for Linear One-Step GMM (1999 2010) Variable Coef. (S.E.) Elasticity CRSi,t 1 0.448** (0.042) 0.435 Flood t-1 12.290** (5.931) 0.017 Risk-Index t-1 0.013 (0.019) 0.044 Tax t-1 0.591** (0.149) 1.429 Staff 3.541** (1.442) 0.276 Crime t-1-0.150 (0.115) -0.252 Unemployment t-1-1.975 (3.259-0.059 Student-Teacher t-1-0.786 (0.115) -0.052 Population-Density 1.748** (0.222) 1.538 Income 8.939** (3.582) 1.843 Migration 15.675 (19.732) 0.062 Senior 1467.562** (396.630) 1.007 Constant -559.977** (27.105) NA Year Dummies Wald joint significance (df=11,12) Wald time dummies (df=11) Included 205.76** 439.95** R 2 0.43 First-order serial -1.852* correlation Second-order serial 0.742 correlation Sargan test 65.426 Number of observations 976 * Indicates that the estimation is significant at 10%. ** Indicates that the estimation is significant at 5%.

Table A4. Estimation Results for Linear One-Step GMM Using CRS Series-Level Data (2002 2008) Variable C300 C400 C500 C600 Total points CRS i,t 1 Flood t-1 Risk-Index t-1 Tax t-1 Staff Crime t-1 Unemployment t-1 Student-Teacher t-1 Population-Density Income Migration Senior Constant 0.039 0.443** 0.104** -0.131 0.261** (0.245) (0.029) (0.007) (0.356) (0.024) 0.151 3.286** 2.891** -0.024 21.350* (0.145) (1.258) (0.977) (0.061) (11.863) -0.0009-0.062** -0.007** -0.0003-0.017 (0.002) (0.005) (0.003) (0.0002) (0.012) 0.056* 0.139** 0.275** 0.015** 0.754** (0.033) (0.057) (0.039) (0.004) (0.243) 0.040 0.567 0.701** -0.002 4.294** (0.051) (0.641) (0.226) (0.017) (1.703) -0.019* -0.041-0.057** -0.003-0.102** (0.0105) (0.027) (0.014) (0.007) (0.041) -0.038 1.203 0.431-0.081-1.663 (0.293) (1.173) (0.878) (0.066) (0.176) 0.040 0.225-0.562** 0.001-0.072 (0.067) (0.263) (0.167) (0.027) (0.057) 0.129** 0.588** 0.462** 0.111** 1.312** (0.029) (0.137) (0.094) (0.017) (0.296) 0.201 0.427 6.133* 0.272 6.832** (0.167) (0.638) (3.654) (0.330) (1.764) 0.853 2.440 4.286 0.287 25.214 (1.108) (7.429) (4.202) (0.374) (18.240) 66.494 270.007** 134.706 38.050 376.523 (45.652) (53.105) (274.145) (26.682) (604.051) -4.755-682.566** -658.945** -47.107** -1504.252** (15.891) (65.721) (393.837) (17.512) (578.227) Year Dummies Included Included Included Included included Wald joint significance (df=11) 66.51** 446.60** 147.75** 251.31** 174.63** Wald time dummies (df=6) 74.48** 271.25** 234.24** 205.20** 157.12** R 2 0.20 0.64 0.29 0.09 0.39 First-order serial correlation -3.44** -2.41** -1.38-0.96-1.98 Second-order serial correlation 0.73 0.21 0.93 0.22 1.24 Sargan test 55.04** 17.53 15.27 21.34** 19.86 Number of observations 487 487 487 487 487 Note: Standard errors in parentheses. * Indicates that the estimation is significant at 10%. ** Indicates that the estimation is significant at 5%.

Table A5. Elasticity of Linear One-Step GMM Using CRS Series-Level Data (2002 2008) C300 C400 C500 C600 Total Points CRS i,t 1 0.039 0.426 0.235-0.130 0.251 Flood t-1 0.001 0.013 0.051 0.000 0.032 Risk-Index t-1-0.010-0.549-0.278-0.012-0.057 Tax t-1 0.458 0.868 7.713 0.421 1.795 Staff 0.010 0.113 0.629-0.002 0.327 Crime t-1-0.107-0.176-1.098-0.058-0.167 Unemployment t-1-0.004 0.091 0.146-0.027-0.048 Student-Teacher t-1 0.009 0.037-0.418 0.001-0.005 Population-Density 0.380 1.322 4.666 1.121 1.125 Income 0.139 0.225 14.490 0.643 1.370 Migration 0.011 0.024 0.190 0.013 0.095 Senior 0.152 0.471 1.056 0.298 0.251

Figure A1. Measurement of Population-Weighted CRS Points for a County (An Example for Pitt County, North Carolina, in 2005) Figure A2. Mean of Population-Weighted CRS Points of for North Carolina Counties over the Study Period (1999 2010)