Flood Mitigation on the Raritan Rivereac.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/FEMAProjectReport3.pdf ·...
Transcript of Flood Mitigation on the Raritan Rivereac.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/FEMAProjectReport3.pdf ·...
Flood Mitigation on the Raritan River Final Report February 1 – March 30, 2012
Prepared for the Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Region II
by
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
April 30, 2012
Submitted by
Judy Shaw, Ph.D., PP, AICP, Principal Investigator
On behalf of:
Community Assessment Section:
Stacy Perrine, PP/AICP, E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Lizzie Browder, MCRP ‘13
Economic Modeling Section:
Joseph J. Seneca, Ph.D., E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Will Irving, E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Kate Davidoff, E.J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Risk Modeling Section:
Fred Roberts, Ph.D., Command, Control, and Interoperability Center for Advanced Data
Analysis (CCICADA)
Paul Kantor, Ph.D., School of Communication and Information
Qizhong Guo, Ph.D., Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
David Robinson, Ph.D., Department of Geography
2 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF THE FINAL REPORT
This third and final report for the FEMA-Rutgers project on Flood Mitigation on the Raritan
River covers the period from February 1, 2012 through March 30, 2012. It covers the three
major task areas of Community Assessment, Economic Modeling and Risk Modeling. This
ground-breaking regional approach offers a template for replication in New Jersey, the region
and across the nation.
Task One: Community Assessment
The final work product of the Community Assessment Team includes the completed Phase 2
municipal interviews, results of two focus groups, production of innovative educational maps,
and an update to the media report for the region, and a pilot community survey on mitigation.
In all, fifty elected officials or municipal employees and volunteers participated in the
municipal surveys. The summary of those interviews was presented on March 29 to over
thirty representatives from the region. For that meeting several maps were created to better
illustrate the connection among the municipalities in the watershed.
We conducted two focus groups; the first with representatives of the seven counties in the
Raritan River region. This session was attended by engineers, planners, County Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) Coordinators and regional FEMA staff. The second focus
group was a general session sponsored by the Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering
Council for municipal engineers, planners and other interested parties. The report
summarizes those events
The report also includes a summary of a White Paper on Blue and Green Engineering, which
was produced as a separate outcome by the council and will be used in future dialogue on
mitigation and professional development within the engineering community.
The Media Review on local Social, Environmental and Political issues now provides guidance
on how to replicate such a system by other regions interested in tracking similar data.
The final input is a Pilot Community Survey tested with those attending the final municipal
Mitigation Session on March 29.
Task Two: Economic Modeling
This report provides an analysis of the potential public and private benefits of flood mitigation
efforts in the Raritan River watershed. It is organized as follows. Section 1 consists of an
econometric analysis of the relation between past flooding events and the extent of National
Flood Insurance Program claimed damage payouts. Section 2 provides a discussion of
additional municipal costs that should be included in a comprehensive estimation of the
relation between flood severity and damages. Section 3 examines the costs of increased risk
of premature death and injury that occur because of flooding events and how federal
3 | P a g e
regulatory agencies (e.g., USEPA) place monetary values on these risks. Section 4 discusses
how to estimate the monetary value of ecosystem services that accrue to natural capital (e.g.,
riparian buffer areas). These benefits should be included in any comprehensive assessment of
policies that restore developed property in flood plains to a natural state as a riparian buffer.
Section 5 provides a review of the extensive literature that attempts to measure the monetary
discount on home prices that is imposed by the location of the house in a flood risk area. Such
discounts are costs incurred by property owners and are additional costs to those discussed in
previous sections. Section 6 provides a summary and suggestions for additional research.
Task Three: Risk Modeling
The CCICADA component of the project has developed an integrated model that works with a
hydrological model of the Raritan basin. This model takes historical rainfall data, and has been
calibrated to describe the behavior of flood levels at one selected river gage during a
significant 2007 flooding event. In addition, published data on the effectiveness of Green
Infrastructure has been used to compute the reduction in runoff from each sub-basin and thus
the reduced flood height at the selected gage.
In a second component of the research, the team developed a non-linear, threshold-based
model that relates the cumulated or integrated amount of river activity above flood level to
the FEMA payouts using historical data on both. This model offers the ability to predict against
historical data, and can be used to relate the hydrological model directly to FEMA payout
records.
In a third component of the research, the team has developed a conceptual model of the
relation among meteorological activity, hydrological models, infrastructure intervention, and
fine grained topography. This model can serve as a conceptual foundation for informed
communication with local decision makers. Completion of this line of research is contingent on
further study of (a) the detailed topography, requiring LIDAR surveys, and (b) elicitation of
stakeholder perspectives with regard to the relative importance of several measures of impact
(loss of business; loss of personal property; development of recreation; property values; etc).
Together, these components show linking meteorology, hydrology, non-linear modeling and
sophisticated elicitation can provide a useful tool for informing and guiding discussion among
all stakeholders. The present study, yielding non-linear models for four towns, and
hydrological models linked to one of these, provides a proof of principle, and a basis for
estimating the costs of extending the model to the entire basin.
4 | P a g e
Table of Contents
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT ON FLOODING, MITIGATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE .............................. 5
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5
Municipal Interviews ................................................................................................................. 6
Municipal Workshop ................................................................................................................. 8
Focus Groups............................................................................................................................. 9
White Paper on Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0 ................................................................ 12
Media Review: Social, Environmental and Political News Snapshots .................................... 12
The Pilot Survey: Local Mitigation .......................................................................................... 13
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF FLOODING EVENTS IN THE RARITAN BASIN: ............................................ 15
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 15
I. National Flood Insurance Plan Payouts and Flood Event Severity ...................................... 15
Model Results ...................................................................................................................... 16
Example Application of Econometric Equations .................................................................. 21
Potential Model Improvements ........................................................................................... 23
II. Municipal Costs Due to Flooding ........................................................................................ 23
Sources of Flood Damage Estimates .................................................................................. 25
Interview Findings and Literature Review .......................................................................... 26
References .......................................................................................................................... 29
III. Mortality and Morbidity Costs ........................................................................................... 30
IV. Ecosystem Services Benefits .............................................................................................. 31
References ......................................................................................................................... 34
V. Impact of Floods on House Prices....................................................................................... 35
Literature Review: The Effect of Floodplain Location on House Prices ............................. 38
References .......................................................................................................................... 43
RISK MODELING ........................................................................................................................... 44
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 46
Appendix A: Participants in the Municipal Surveys ................................................................ 46
Appendix B: Maps ................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix C: Our Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0............................................................... 50
Appendix D: Social Environmental and Political News Snapshots.......................................... 72
Appendix E: Tracking Local News Articles............................................................................... 80
Appendix F: Municipal Mitigation Survey and Results ........................................................... 83
Appendix G: Thresholds Data ................................................................................................. 90
5 | P a g e
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT ON FLOODING, MITIGATION AND QUALITY OF
LIFE IN THE RARITAN RIVER REGION Judy A Shaw, Ph.D., PP/AICP
Stacy Perrine, MCRP, PP/AICP
Lizzie Browder, MCRP ‘13
Overview
The final report on community inputs on flooding, mitigation and quality of life in the Raritan
River Region includes five areas of interest to FEMA for both regional mitigation benefits and
for application across the country. The community inputs team endeavored to understand
how much public understands about mitigation and how to improve their knowledge in order
to more effectively reduce the impacts of flooding. The report summarizes the first two
phases, highlights the progress in the third phase and recommends next steps.
During the first phase, the community inputs team surveyed existing data on the 99
municipalities in the Raritan River region to capture a ‘snapshot’ of their demographic status
and their flood histories. An initial media review provided additional insights into the
communities, highlighting their environmental, social and political issues as a means of further
understanding the dynamics of decision-making at the local level. In the second phase, we
conducted interviews, held focus groups, produced a white paper, maps and piloted a
community survey.
Municipal Interviews: The interviews were conducted with some twenty municipalities across
the region – ranging from those with extremely high flood impacts to those with relatively few
impacts. The first goal was to understand how each of these communities understood
flooding issues and mitigation. The second goal was to understand how to improve local
initiation of mitigation strategies to reduce their overall flooding risk. In all, across the twenty
communities, the team interviewed fifty elected officials or municipal employees along with
emergency management staff (both paid and volunteer). The findings of the group were
assembled and shared in briefing attended by some forty people on March 29, 2012. The
summary of the interviews and the report on the March 29 meeting are the first deliverable of
Phase 3. Appendix A, Participants in the Municipal Surveys, provides a list of the communities
and the titles of the interviewees. The maps created for the March 29 session are in Appendix
B, Maps. A video designed to illustrate the flow of water across the watershed, and how
neighboring communities are impacted, is provided as a separate deliverable.
Focus Groups: The second element of the community report is a summary of the two focus
groups that met to work on these issues. The first focus group met on March 2, 2012. This
group represented all seven counties in the Raritan River Watershed (Hunterdon, Mercer,
6 | P a g e
Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Somerset and Union). At the meeting, county engineers,
planners and Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Coordinators met with regional FEMA
staff and the community input team to respond to the same questions that were posed in the
municipal official interviews.
The second focus group was a general session sponsored by the Sustainable Raritan River
Regional Engineering Council for municipal engineers, planners and other interested parties.
That session, attended by close to 100 professionals, presented green and ‘blue’ engineering
approaches to encourage broader application of non-structural flood mitigation strategies
along with traditional engineered solutions. A second component of the Council effort was a
White Paper on Blue and Green Engineering, which is provided as Appendix C in this report.
The report includes summaries of those events and a summary of a white paper produced by
the council.
Media Review: The most recent media review presents updated information from online
reviews of local news. The report on the Media review PowerPoint is presented as a separate
deliverable, but is also summarized, along with guidance on how to replicate such a system by
other regions interested in tracking similar data.
Pilot Survey: The final input is a pilot community survey tested with those attending the final
municipal Mitigation Session on March 29.
Municipal Interviews
Municipal interviews gathered information on local perceptions of flooding, including
potential causes, mitigation strategies, and then to explore what would be needed to improve
participation in mitigation strategies and the overall political mechanism needed to promote a
regional approach to flood mitigation and stormwater management. In all, over fifty people
took part in these interviews. Since the completion of Report #2, the community assessment
team at Rutgers has interviewed Milltown Borough of Middlesex County and Englishtown
Borough and Freehold Township of Monmouth County. The municipalities interviewed are
listed below:
Bound Brook
Borough
Clinton Township
Edison Township
Englishtown
Borough
Freehold Township
Hightstown Borough
Hopewell Township
Manville Borough
Milltown Borough
Middlesex Borough
Monroe Township
Raritan Township
Scotch Plains
Township
Woodbridge
Township
Washington
Township
Watchung Borough
7 | P a g e
Findings Below are the tables from the Report #2, updated to include the entirety of towns that we
met with during the municipal interview phase. While the communities realize that there
are more frequent flooding events, they attribute the damages to sub-part infrastructure,
the absence of a stream maintenance and management program, and over- and older
development in the flood zones.
Table 1: Ranking of Flood Causes
(1 – lowest, 3 - highest)
Municipalities
Sub-par
Infrastructure/absent
stream maintenance
Development (either over
development or older
development in flood zones)
More Frequent
Flooding Events
Bound Brook 3 2 1
Clinton 3 2 1
Edison 2 3 1
Englishtown 3 1 2
Freehold 2 3 1
Hightstown 2 3 1
Hopewell 3 2 1
Manville 3 2 1
Milltown 3 2 1
Middlesex B. 2 3 1
Monroe 2 3 1
Raritan 3 2 1
Scotch Plains 2 3 1
Woodbridge 3 2 1
Washington 2 3 1
Watchung 2 3 1
Total Score 40 39 17
8 | P a g e
Report Table 2: Ranking of Preferred Mitigation Strategy (
1 – lowest, 5 - highest)
Municipalities
Regional
Stormwater
Planning
New
Engineering
Techniques
Dredging Buyout/Open
Space Education
Bound Brook 4 5 1 3 2
Clinton 5 4 2 1 3
Edison 5 3 4 1 2
Englishtown 4 3 5 1 2
Freehold 4 3 1 2 5
Hightstown 5 4 2 1 3
Hopewell 4 5 1 3 2
Manville 2 5 1 4 3
Middlesex B. 4 5 1 3 2
Milltown 4 3 5 1 2
Monroe 5 3 1 4 2
Raritan 3 5 1 2 4
Scotch Plains 5 4 3 1 3
Woodbridge 4 3 2 1 5
Washington 4 3 5 2 1
Watchung 5 2 4 3 1
Total Score 67 60 39 33 42
Municipal Workshop
The findings of the interviews formed the discussion at a dinner meeting with municipal
leaders, as well as county, state, and federal representatives. The workshop was held at the
Bloustein School on Thursday, March 29, 2012. Municipal representation included mayors,
engineers, OEM personnel, environmental commission members, and others from Bound Brook
Borough, Edison Township, Franklin Borough, Manville Borough, Milltown Borough and Monroe
Township. Various County representatives from both Middlesex and Somerset County were
also in attendance. State government was
represented by personnel from the NJ Department of
Environmental Protection, and federal level
government personnel by both the Army Corps and
the Department of Homeland Security.
New Jersey State Climatologist and Rutgers Geography
Professor Dr. David Robinson gave an overview of
9 | P a g e
notable floods in the Raritan Region, noting they flooding events are not new and climate
scenarios predict them happening more often and possibly becoming more intense in the
future.
Project mapping was also shown to display National
Flood Insurance payouts, topography and impervious
coverages in the Raritan region.
Animated maps were also produced to illustrate the
movement of the water throughout the Region and
specifically from town to town. This was a general
demonstration done to assure the local officials present
that should they want to delve deeper into this exercise
in their own mitigation planning, all of the data used is
publicly available and the University is able to assist in
the data gathering, research and mapping
demonstrations.
Full-page maps and stills from the animation can be seen
in Appendix B. These are also available online at
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/brownfields/projects/
Focus Groups
Focus Group 1: Regional County Management
On March 2, 2012, a focus group with OEM personnel, planners and engineers from the seven
counties of the Raritan River Watershed was held at the Somerset County Government
headquarters. Representatives from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection as well as
the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA were also present. The Rutgers team shared with
the group the initial findings of municipal interviews that were taking place at the time,
including a specific cause of flooding that had been named by most of the municipalities.
Local officials believed their flooding to be caused development upstream, coupled with man-
made structures being built to aid in flooding upstream. It was the general belief that this was
now causing greater flood damage in municipalities downstream. There was disagreement
among County officials as to how great of a role the upstream flood walls actually played in
flooding that occurred downstream after Hurricane Irene, as individuals agreed that the region
had simply not before experienced that amount of rain in an already oversaturated area.
10 | P a g e
County officials also expressed an interest in learning more about FEMA’s property acquisition
program, which was not the focus of this workshop but could be the focus of a future event.
Focus Group 2: The Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering Council
A second variation on a focus group took place
with the municipal engineers through the
Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering
Council. This group, assembled from twenty six
engineering firms, many local engineers, and
several water utility engineers, discussed
policy, regulation, education (both of
professionals and public officials) and financing
of “blue infrastructure” in the region. This
group met as a body, along with other
engineers and planners in the region, on
Friday, March 16, 2012 at the Middlesex County Fire Training Academy in Sayreville, NJ.
The program covered the key elements of discussions on the need for new practices to
promote mitigation in New Jersey (see White Paper below). Presentations included an
overview of regional weather and flooding by Dr. David Robinson; Hazard Management
Planning for Municipalities by Cynthia Addonizio-Bianco, (Tretra Tech) a Low-Tech Mitigation
Solutions by Water Resources expert, Dr. Chris Obropta (Rutgers University Agricultural
Experiment Station). Andrew Bellini, PE, from USEPA Region II presented on Green
Infrastructure Strategies and Robert A. Brown, also from the regional office, presented the
pervious paving project for the USEPA Region II Labs in Edison, New Jersey.
The professional affiliation of those that attended included mostly engineers, then planners,
public works officials, flood plain managers, environmental scientists, landscape architects,
local elected officials, OEM personnel, and wastewater treatment personnel.
Workshop attendees ranked stormwater management (SWM) and flooding as high to
medium high priority when compared to other infrastructure, environmental and economic
issues in the state. One respondent answered that SWM and flooding are integral parts of
ALL environmental, infrastructure and economic issues in the state and therefore needs to
be considered when planning for all projects. Regarding how changes to policy could
enhance blue or green infrastructure mitigation measures, the number one response was a
simplification needed of the regulations and permits on stream cleaning and floodplain
11 | P a g e
restoration in the state. This was then followed by education of both the general public
and public officials on measures they can take and how what they do affects the
movement of stormwater in the entire town and the region at large.
A concept that was mentioned during the presentation portion and received positive
feedback in the surveys was promoting a program for corporate sponsorship of waterways
similar to the “adopt a highway” program.
When ranking mitigation strategies, the strategy that got the highest score was open space
and wetland restoration and creation, followed by dredging with inflow stream
management plans. Ranked third was a near tie between low tech engineering measures
and minimizing development intensities through greater land use regulation. Interesting
side notes next to the ranks included:
The mitigation community needs to make the distinction between which measures
are to manage stormwater and which are to mitigate flood hazards
Mitigation strategies should also be ranked on cost as well as effectiveness
Mitigation strategies should also be ranked on ease of planning and enforcement
with existing regulations and permitting process
Mitigation planning must be performed on a regional basis or it will be ineffective
In terms of funding, the professional world believes a State Trust Fund would be most
beneficial for funding projects. Some added that this could be done with greater impact
fees on development. It was also noted that not funding projects that don’t go beyond
already existing state SWM rules is also important to ensure that scarce grant money is
appropriated accordingly. One respondent added that our state would benefit from
holding a state-wide symposium where we would bring to the table what every other state
does in terms of flood mitigation and how they fund it.
Regarding education of the public on the issue, it was the general consensus that more
community outreach and workshops need to be held to educate not only the general
public, but also elected officials on what they would be best served in transferring to their
residents. Respondents agreed that social media would be a great outlet for this, with
online videos and workshops. These would be relatively inexpensive to make and officials
wouldn’t have to travel to attend the training.
As final comments, respondents added that they’d like to see case studies from other areas
in the state and country, pilot projects on some of the suggestions made in the
presentations as well as the discussion, and a specific focus on detention basin
maintenance, since Rutgers has faculty that are well-versed in the subject.
12 | P a g e
White Paper on Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0
In addition to the focus group, the Sustainable Raritan River Regional Engineering Council also
created five subcommittees to address changes needed to enhance green and blue
infrastructure improvements in New Jersey. The leaders of the subcommittees provided input
on their deliberations during the March 16 workshop. During January, February and March of
2012, those leaders convened working group conference calls to identify the critical issues in
the following five areas:
Policy
Regulation
Professional Education
Public Official Education
Financing
The outcome of those discussions are summarized in Appendix C, the Sustainable Raritan River
Regional Engineering Council White Paper on Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0, which was
distributed for review by the whole Council and those attending the March 16 workshop in an
effort to focus attention at the state and professional level on the need to integrate built and
non-structural solutions to future mitigation efforts. Essentially, it highlights the juxtaposing
viewpoints between engineers and scientists on best approaches to stormwater management:
solutions from dredging versus restoration of natural channels and applying more non-
structural approaches. Policy and regulatory practices do not fully recognize restoration as
value-added to ecosystem services and therefore strategies that would enhance stream habitat
may not be consistent with existing regulations. The white paper will be shared with the NJDEP
in an effort to foster more dialogue on the issues raised for the benefit of mitigation
enhancement across the state.
Media Review: Social, Environmental and Political News Snapshots
The Media Review element of this research is designed to provide a snapshot of events and
activities in local communities that may impact public response to mitigation. The initial
reports provided a brief overview of social, environmental and political. The third review can
be found in Appendix D, Social, Environmental and Political News Snapshots. The final Media
Review was to describe a strategy by which anyone can track local news can be selected by
adopting one of a variety of search functions. In this case, we used Google Search and Google
Alerts. The instructions on how to use these are found in the PowerPoint: Google Alerts Quick
Guide (separate deliverable) and in Appendix E, Tracking Local News Articles.
13 | P a g e
The Pilot Survey: Local Mitigation
The mitigation survey was conducted to test knowledge of mitigation, significance to local
officials, their desire for further information about the subject, desired mode of transmission of
the information, and their willingness to become involved in the issue in their own towns.
Most of the March 29th workshop attendees were local elected officials, which was expected
since this was a follow-up to the municipal interviews held in the months of January and
February. Also in attendance were engineers, planners, OEM personnel, a flood plain manager,
a landscape architect, and others who did not classify their affiliation. The majority of meeting
attendees had lived in their respective towns for over 25 years and expressed having
experienced multiple flooding events.
Those surveyed felt their town was either a good or excellent place to live. Only one town,
Manville, rated their experience as “poor”. When asked what the status of the environment in
their town would be in the next 25 years, respondents were split on the environment being
better and it being worse. Only two people said it would likely remain the same. In terms of
flooding in their town, a majority of respondents believe that excessive rain is the culprit with
intensity of rain events getting the second largest number of votes. Most respondents believe
that the flooding in their town is critical or hazardous, as opposed to a simple nuisance.
When asked about the mitigation strategies that would work for their individual communities,
most municipalities placed the buy-out program at the low end of the list, with community
wide best management practices, such as storm water mitigation, as the highest. In terms of
what the most important benefit that flood mitigation would bring to their community,
reduction of cost absorbed by the municipal budget was ranked as the most important. An
emphasis on flooding’s impact on local budgets is most likely a vital issue because many of the
municipalities in the region are still cleaning up from Hurricane Irene and therefore still feeling
the impact in local budgets.
When asked to rank their familiarity with specific mitigation strategies, all of the respondents
were either very familiar or somewhat familiar with rain barrels and rain gardens. Stream
restoration also ranked very high. Interesting to note is that reconnecting floodplains got the
highest score in terms of respondents NOT being familiar with the strategy at all. This
illustrates a specific area where education could be offered to the community and community-
wide planning could create a system for reconnecting the floodplains in the region.
In terms of the communication mechanism to bring flood mitigation information to the
communities, most respondents agreed that good old fashion personal meetings are most
effective. A lot of respondents also felt that workshops with their OEM personnel would also
be beneficial. Web-based videos seem to be the least-desired communication mechanism.
14 | P a g e
Attendees ranked their own town as the best place to hold workshops, as less and less people
would be willing to attend as the workshops moved further from their home-base.
When asked about their willingness to implement more mitigation strategies in their own town,
most respondents expressed their willingness to attend trainings on beneficial practices,
regardless of the number of trainings available in any given amount of time. This illustrates the
importance of workshop content and local applicability, rather than monthly meetings that may
lack substantive materials.
A summary of the survey results, along with a copy of the survey itself, are provided in
Appendix F, Municipal Mitigation Survey.
15 | P a g e
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF FLOODING EVENTS IN THE RARITAN BASIN:
Framework for Development of a Damage Assessment Model
Dr. Joseph J. Seneca
Will Irving
Kate Davidoff
Introduction
This report provides an analysis of the potential public and private benefits of flood mitigation
efforts in the Raritan River watershed. It is organized as follows. Section 1 consists of an
econometric analysis of the relation between past flooding events and the extent of National
Flood Insurance Program claimed damage payouts. Section 2 provides a discussion of
additional municipal costs that should be included in a comprehensive estimation of the
relation between flood severity and damages. Section 3 examines the costs of increased risk of
premature death and injury that occur because of flooding events and how federal regulatory
agencies (e.g., USEPA) place monetary values on these risks. Section 4 discusses how to
estimate the monetary value of ecosystem services that accrue to natural capital (e.g., riparian
buffer areas).
These benefits should be included in any comprehensive assessment of policies that restore
developed property in flood plains to a natural state as a riparian buffer. Section 5 provides a
review of the extensive literature that attempts to measure the monetary discount on home
prices that is imposed by the location of the house in a flood risk area. Such discounts are costs
incurred by property owners and are additional costs to those discussed in previous sections.
Finally, Section 6 provides a summary and suggestions for additional research.
I. National Flood Insurance Plan Payouts and Flood Event Severity
This section presents the results of a linear programming model relating annual National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) claim payouts to flood severity for a selection of four municipalities in
the Raritan Basin: Bound Brook, Branchburg, Manville, and Middlesex. Specifically, the model
measures the annual dollar amount of claims paid by the NFIP program in each municipality (in
16 | P a g e
inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) as a function of stream discharge at the nearest USGS U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge site. Two measures of discharge were used in the
analysis. The first is the peak daily mean streamflow, measured in cubic feet per second, for
each municipality each year. The second measure is the peak streamflow, also measured in
cubic feet per second, for each “water year” as reported by the USGS for each relevant site.
The time period covered is 1975 to 2011.
At this stage the model does not attempt to examine all municipal or federal damage costs
incurred as a result of flood events. Rather it is intended to provide an initial framework for
development of a more detailed model that would capture a broader range of damages, and
relate them to more comprehensive measures of flood severity. In combination with a
measure of flood probability and/or risk, such a model can provide a tool for evaluating the
expected benefits – i.e., the reduction in damage costs – that may occur from various types of
flood mitigation measures. Suggested approaches to the development of a more fully specified
model are provided following the description of the results.
Model Results
For each of the four municipalities in question, NFIP payouts (in 2011 dollars) were first plotted
against both measures of streamflow: peak daily mean for each year from 1975 through 2011,
and peak streamflow for each year from 1975 through 2010.1 Graphs plotting the relationship
of payouts to each of the two streamflow measures are shown for each municipality. The first
graph for each municipality – the one using the peak daily mean flow for each year – includes a
plot for 2011, while the second graph does not. This is because the USGS had not listed a peak
flow for 2011 for each municipality at the time of this analysis. The payout level is zero for
most years, as indicated in the graphs.
Note that the payout levels for 2011 indicated in the first graph do not represent the full year’s
data, as only data through September 2011 were available at the time of the analysis. As a
result, these payout levels appear uniformly low relative to the streamflow levels. As such, this
point is included on each of the graphs for informative purposes, but cannot be considered a
reliable measure of 2011 payouts to include in the econometric estimation until the full claims
data are available.
1 Residential and non-residential NFIP claims are combined for each year. Residential claims were adjusted to 2011
price levels based on gross domestic product (GDP) price deflators for fixed residential investment. Non-
residential claims were adjusted based on GDP price deflators for non-residential fixed investment in structures.
Both series are published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
17 | P a g e
1979 1996
1999 2007
2010
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010
Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
1979
1996
1999 2007
2010
2011 $0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011
Bound Brook NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
18 | P a g e
1979
1984
1996
1999
2007 2010 2011
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011
Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
1979
1984
1996
1999
2007 2010
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010
Branchburg NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
19 | P a g e
1979
1996
1999
2007
2010
2011
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011
Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
1979
1996
1999
2007
$2010
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000
Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010
Manville NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
20 | P a g e
1979 1984
1996
1999
2007
2010
2011
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Peak Daily Mean Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Daily Mean Streamflow, 1975-2011
Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
1984
1996
1999
2007
2010
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000
Peak Annual Streamflow (cubic feet/second)
Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars) by Peak Annual Streamflow, 1975-2010
Middlesex NFIP Claims (Constant 2011 Dollars)
21 | P a g e
In the case of all the municipalities with the exception of Branchburg, the pattern of the two
graphs is the same, with both showing an increase in payouts relative to streamflow above a
threshold level. In all cases except Branchburg, the statistical relationship between payouts and
streamflow is of relatively equal strength. In the case of Branchburg, the relationship between
payouts and peak annual discharge is much stronger, as can be seen by comparing the two
graph plots.
Based on an estimated linear programming model fitted to data graphed above for each
municipality, the sensitivity between peak annual streamflow and NFIP claims is presented in
Table 1. These findings are the result of statistical analysis of the relationships using the data in
the second graph for each municipality on the preceding pages. The Damage Threshold in each
table represents the expected streamflow level at which NFIP payable claims begin to occur for
each municipality.2 The final column in each table indicates the estimated increase in NFIP
payouts for every increase of 5,000 cubic feet per second of streamflow over the specified
threshold.3
Example Application of Econometric Equations
The estimated equations can be used to forecast insurance payouts for individual municipalities
for varying levels of flooding. Also, forecasted levels of damages can be compared to actual
damages ex post.
For example, the 2011 observations were not included in the estimated linear programming
equations for Bound Brook and Manville due to incomplete data on insurance payouts for that
year. Also, significant mitigation efforts in both municipalities have occurred over the last
2 The Damage Threshold is not necessarily a level at which past payouts have been made. Rather, in the statistical
relationship between payouts and streamflow, it is the estimated point after which the first dollar would be paid. 3 This amount is based on the estimated coefficients from the model estimation for each municipality. The
estimated equations are given for each municipality in Appendix G, Thresholds Data.
No. Municipality
USGS Stream
Gauge Site No. USGS Stream Gauge Site Name
Damage Threshold*
(Cubic Feet/Second)
Damage Increase per
5,000 Cubic
Feet/Second Increase
(2011 Dollars)
1 Bound Brook USGS 01403060 Raritan River below Calco Dam at Bound Brook NJ 29,185 $2,643,616
2 Branchburg USGS 01400000 North Branch Raritan River near Raritan NJ 17,748 $672,650
3 Manville USGS 01400500 Raritan River at Manville NJ 20,217 $1,407,661
4 Middlesex USGS 01403060 Raritan River below Calco Dam at Bound Brook NJ 26,022 $488,075
* Damage Threshold represents the estimated streamflow level at which monetary damages, measured by National Flood Insurance Program claim
payouts, begin to accrue.
Table 1
Relationship of Damage Estimates To Peak Annual Streamflow
22 | P a g e
decade including flood control infrastructure investment and buyouts. Thus, given the actual
readings of flood severity for 2011 from the river gauge data, the equations can be solved for
the expected insurance damage payouts in each municipality. These estimates can then be
compared with actual insurance payouts when all the payout data is available. The difference,
if any, between the forecasted payouts and the actual payouts could be one measure of the
estimated effect (in terms of the amount of damages avoided) that has resulted from the
mitigation efforts. Table 2 presents the 2011 payout forecasts for Bound Brook and Manville
using the linear programming model, and shows the payouts reported to date (through
September 2011). Note that because peak streamflow estimates for these locations were not
yet available for 2011, the peak daily mean flow is used. The higher peak annual flow measure
would produce a higher estimated payout level.
Table 2
Bound Brook Manville
Peak Daily Mean Streamflow 51,700 44,500
Estimated 2011 Payouts $11,904,048 $6,836,320
Payouts to Date $1,232,861 $3,299,160
Thus, if the payouts-to-date as indicated in Table 2 represented the full payouts for the
year, the implication would be that mitigation efforts - whether in the form of buyouts or
property-protection measures – had reduced the potential damages by $10.7 million in Bound
Brook and by $3.5 million in Manville. Findings such as this would present opportunities to
study the mitigation actions undertaken in municipalities with lower-than-expected damages in
order to determine the potential reductions in avoided damages associated with mitigation
actions of various scopes and costs. However, it is likely that the payout data are incomplete.
Therefore, a definitive conclusion on the 2011 payouts must wait until a complete record of
payouts for the events of that year is available.
Another approach is to examine the estimated reduction in damages that could be
achieved through a reduction in streamflow – that is, through a reduction in runoff due to
installation of green infrastructure. A preliminary estimate of the costs associated with such an
approach was generated for the Raritan River Basin at Manville using the Green Values
Calculator developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a non-profit advocacy group
promoting sustainable development. The estimate indicates capital costs of between $20,000
and $64,000 per acre and annual maintenance costs of between $700 and $1,400 per acre to
retain one inch of runoff, which results in a streamflow reduction of approximately 10,000
cubic feet per second. A comprehensive benefit-cost analysis would refine and apply these
estimates across the river basin around Manville, and would take into account a broadly
defined range of benefits, including damage reductions, as well as other environmental
benefits, such as water quality improvement, reduced stream bank erosion, reduced water
treatment costs, and others. These benefits and damage reductions would also likely accrue to
23 | P a g e
other municipalities downstream of Manville and the full scope of these benefits would be
incorporated into the analysis.
Potential Model Improvements
There are several ways in which the model’s predictive efficiency and effectiveness
could be improved.
Event-Level Data
Due to data constraints, this model used annual data on NFIP payouts and streamflow.
Ideally, these indicators would be measured on an event-by-event basis, in order to more
precisely relate flood severity to associated damages. Distinctions between multiple events in a
given year are not captured using annual measures of damage payouts.
Refined Flood Severity Measures
Because of time and data constraints, this demonstration model uses a single measure –
streamflow – as an indicator of flooding severity. However, this measure fails to capture other
hydrological and land features that may influence the severity of flood damage, such as
precipitation and ground saturation preceding a major storm event and time elapsed between
events. More sophisticated measures of flood event severity could capture the effects of these
conditions and other relevant flood event determinants of damages.
Functional Form
The equation modeled here represents a simple linear relationship (after a threshold
had been determined by the methodology) between damage claim payouts and flood severity.
However, a different functional form – i.e., a non-linear mathematical formulation of the
relationship after the threshold – could produce a model that more accurately predicts the
observed damages associated with given levels of flood severity.
II. Municipal Costs Due to Flooding
Given a well-developed model framework and flood severity measure, it would be
possible to estimate the potential damages avoided (i.e., benefits) of various mitigation
strategies based on historical data on the damages incurred relative to the expected damages
relative to flood severity in areas where mitigation measures have been implemented. These
avoided damages could then be compared the cost of implementing the mitigation measures,
allowing for examination in a benefit-cost framework. However, it would be necessary to
analyze the relationship of flood severity using more complete measures of costs. At the
municipal level, it would be of interest to use this framework to estimate the potential net
benefits of various mitigation strategies from a fiscal perspective. While this analysis has
examined the relationship of flooding and NFIP claim payouts, the model could be adapted to
also reflect additional monetary damages incurred by municipalities that may not be
compensated by NFIP or other FEMA or federal programs. While collection and analysis of
24 | P a g e
consistently measured cost data at the municipal level was not within the scope of the current
project, it is worth exploring these potential damage and/or cost types.
Assessing the damages to municipalities of flooding events is complex. Municipalities
incur costs before, during and after flooding events. These costs depend on factors such as the
infrastructure in place prior to the flood event, the level of preparedness, and the extent of the
flood. The taxonomy below outlines some of the activities that impose costs on municipalities
in a flood event. It can serve as a guide to help municipalities systematically classify the
components of the total cost due to flood events. The National Weather Service (NWS) defines
flood damages to include direct and indirect costs associated with flooding and both types of
costs are included below. These costs, fully accounted, could be introduced into the damage
model presented above.
Pre-Event During Event Post Event Flood Planning -Emergency Services
-Extra personnel: military, fire, police, medical service, search and rescue teams -Emergency repairs and other costs: evacuation
Public assistance-rebuild roads, bridges, utilities and other public infrastructure (Direct and Indirect Cost)
Flood Plain Mapping
Protecting and safe-guarding buildings against structural damage and contamination
Endangerment of industry and trade location, due to interruptions of transport sector
Emergency Warnings
Aid to voluntary organizations for assistance to victims including providing food and shelter, health services etc. (Direct Cost)
Long term public health impacts (Indirect Cost)
Communication with public re: local flooding efforts
Ensuring access to Food and Water: waste water and water quality
Telecommunications
Maintenance Municipal services flood control including sandbagging, pumping water, etc. (Direct Cost)
Damage to publically maintained facilities including parks and recreational facilities, public housing, schools, libraries etc. (Indirect Cost)
Real Time Monitoring (Direct Cost)
Loss of revenue from retail sales tax, business tax, reduced property tax assessment both short term and long term (Indirect Cost)
Planning, policy and infrastructure costs associated with demolition, replanning and rebuilding
25 | P a g e
Sources of Flood Damage Estimates
There are a number of sources of flood damage estimates available to municipalities. These sources cover varying geographic areas and include differing scopes for damages making it difficult to compare sources to each other. Given the lack of a comprehensive database, municipalities would have to use a combination of sources.
(source: http://www.flooddamagedata.org/flooddamagedata.pdf)
National Weather Service Data
The National Weather Service (NWS) has compiled annual flood loss estimates for each
state since 1955. However, studies have shown these estimates to often be far lower than total
costs (Downton and Peilke, 2005). NWS provides ‘loss estimates for significant flooding events’
of ‘direct damages due to flooding that results from rainfall and/or snowmelt.’ Estimates are
restricted to direct physical damages, including loss of property and crops and costs of repairing
damaged infrastructure. NWS field offices submit reports to NWS including descriptions of
storms and their impacts, number of deaths and estimated damages.
Advantages
o Relatively consistent data from 1955-present enabling the ability to compare over time.
Disadvantages
o State reports typically focus on severe floods, so generally do not include information
from relatively low flood loss (estimates of losses below $5 million are excluded).
o Data is taken from field offices that may not have training on gathering flood damage
estimates, and level of training differs from field to field.
o FEMA’s tracking costs are more accurate-include initial damage estimate, preliminary
damage assessment, damage survey report and actual costs.
Source Timespan Spatial Scale
Scope
National Weather Service flood damage data sets
1925–present
Nation State Basin
Estimates of direct physical damage from significant flooding events that result from rainfall or snowmelt
Insurance records (National Flood Insurance Program, private insurers)
1969–present
Nation Community
Personal property claims made by individuals holding flood insurance
Disaster assistance records (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
1992–present
Nation State
Federal and state outlays for public assistance, individual assistance, and temporary housing in presidentially declared disasters
State and local government records
Varies State Varies
Newspaper archives Varies Community Varies
26 | P a g e
Interview Findings and Literature Review
Office of Emergency Management Interviews
Interviews with municipalities confirm academic literature that is difficult to fully estimate the
cost for public sector due to flooding.
o Private homeowners file directly to FEMA or their own insurance company leaving OEM
officials with only broad estimates of overall costs.
o Major costs for public sector include overtime for police, firefighters and public works
personal and public infrastructure repair.
o About 75/25% recovery split between federal and local funds is the norm in disaster
relief.
Literature Review
There have been several attempts in the literature to assess public sector costs due to
flooding events
Burton and Hicks (2005) developed a model for public sector costs due to food events in the
aftermath of the damages along the Mississippi and Missouri river basin. This model has been
used several times since then to estimate damages from Hurricane Katrina (2005), flooding in
Memphis, Tennessee (2011) and the flooding of the Indus River in Pakistan (2010). The model
was created to address the limited number of empirical models of flood damages for the public
sector as a whole (2005). The authors take into account that flood damages within specific
categories are related to the economic and geographic conditions that were evident prior to the
flood (2005). The model is represented as
o Mi= f(D,E,F)
Mi=Monetary value of flood damages within the ith damage category
D=vector of the demographic variables including, but not limited to total
population, age distribution, geographic dispersion
E=vector of economic variables, including but not limited to per capital personal
income, number of commercial establishments, industrial mix, extent and value
of personal infrastructures
F= vector of variables describing the flood event(s), including but not limited to
maximum stage above flood, duration of flood, and maximum flows associated
with the flood event and the length of any period of warning, and prior flood
histories
o Advantages
Advantages to this technique is that it is general enough to be translated into
different areas
Develops damage categories including: commercial structure damages,
commercial equipment damages, residential structure damages, residential
contents damages, commercial revenues damages, electric utility damages,
highway damages, sewer system damages
This model can give a broad, quick estimate of flooding impacts immediately
after storm
27 | P a g e
o Disadvantages
Does not include emergency response costs
Does not include cost of human life or costs of injuries
Does not provide an in depth look at costs over the long run for municipalities
An alternative way of looking at the cost of flood events is provided by Brody et al (2007a,
2007b) who seek to understand the impact of the built environment on flood costs. The authors
believe that rising flood related damages may not be fully explained by inflation or population
growth but rather are due to the way we plan for and develop communities. They use the
presence or absence of wetlands, the number of impervious surfaces and the presence of dams
to understand the dramatic rise in costs due to floods. They use their model in several locations
including coastal areas in Florida and east Texas. They examine individual flood events and
regress environmental indices of wetlands, impervious surfaces and dams against flood damage
estimates. Flood damage estimates are gathered using SHELDUS database at the Hazard
Research Lab at the University of South Carolina which consists of county level inventory of
hazard types including flood damages. In their Texas study, they find that increasing amounts of
wetland alteration (decreasing wetland’s effectiveness) is a significant indicator in reported
property damage and is the strongest variable in this test.
Costs for emergency services are substantial and important for the choice of risk management
strategies. However, it is difficult to develop an accurate understanding of the costs for
municipalities during and after a flooding event. British authors Penning-Roswell and Wilson
(2006) attempt to quantify the cost of emergency response activities in Britain during 2000
when there were several floods in England and Wales. Emergency efforts include extensive
flood warnings, temporary protection of large numbers of properties and large-scale evacuation
of vulnerable populations. While this study focuses on the UK, it can guide municipalities in the
US to think about quantifying their emergency response costs in a systematic and sustained
way. The chart below taken from this article outlines the organizations responsible for
emergency response functions.
28 | P a g e
Source: Penning-Rosewall and Wilson
Chatterton et al. (2010) also examine floods in England in 2007 to determine the type, the
magnitude and, where possible and relevant, the plausible monetary value of the impacts of the
summer 2007 flood events across a range of sectors and impact categories. The authors used a
variety of methods to determine costs paid by different sectors. They examined the following:
insurance claims to property, audited accounts of local authorities and public services, surveys of
damages and extra costs incurred by businesses and companies such as utility and transport
companies, surveys of farm businesses, and costs of disruption of services to users based on
previously derived estimates of willingness to pay of services such as water and electricity supplies.
Finally, they standardized unit rates for estimating damages or losses with respect to fatalities,
health costs and travel disruption.
The authors estimated the following distribution of costs:
o Households 38%
o Business 24%
o Utilities 10%
o Communications 7%
o Public Health 9%
o Local Government infrastructure excluding roads and nonemergency services 4%
o Agriculture 2%
o Environmental Agency 1%
o Vehicles 3%
o Temporary Accommodation 3%
o Emergency Services (police, fire and rescue) <1%
29 | P a g e
The percentage of emergency services and local government costs was lower than other
sectors. However, local government costs exceeded 134 million pounds, and emergency
services 8 million pounds; a substantial figure. In this case only 45% of both the local
government and emergency services costs were insured.
Additionally, Pfurtscheller and Schwarze (n.d.)report that during Hurricane Katrina, the
approved government expenditure for emergency services amounts to more than $5 billion or
3.7% of the total economic loss4. They also cite several other studies which show a range of
emergency costs of the total economic loss from 2.2% (Freistaat Sachsen 2002) to 4.7%
(Sachsen-Anhalt 2002) and up to 10.7 % in the U.K. (Penning-Rowsell / Wilson 2006). Their
analysis primarily focuses on European cities; for example, they cite emergency costs of more
than 14.7% in Magdeburg, Germany in 2002 (Freistaat Sachsen 2002). The majority of these
studies are not available in English and it is difficult to fully assess the methodology behind these
estimates.
References
Brody, S., S. Zahran, P., Maghelal, H., Grover and W., Highfield. 2007. The Rising Costs of Floods:
Examining the Impact of Planning and Development Decisions on Property Damage in Florida.
Journal of the American Planning Association. 73:3 330-344.
Brody, S., S. Zahran, P., Maghelal, H., Grover and W., Highfield. 2007. Identifying the Impact of
the Built Environment on Flood Damage in Texas. Overseas Development Institute, Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford UK and Malden MA.
Burton M. and M. Hicks. 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Preliminary Estimates of Commercial and
Public Sector Damages. Center for Business and Economic Research. Marshall University.
Huntington WV.
Chatterton, J., C. Viviatten, J., Morris, C., Penning-Roswell and S., Tapsell. 2010. The Costs of the
Summer 2007 Floods in England. Environmental Science.
Downton, M. and R Pielke. 2005. How Accurate are Disaster Loss Data? The Case of US Flood
Damage. Natural Hazards. 35:211-228
Methods for the Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Flood Losses: 4th International Symposium on
Flood Defence: Managing Flood Risk, Reliability and Vulnerability Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
May 6-8, 2008.
4 This 3.7% of total economic loss figure was also used in a report given to the 4
th International Symposium on
Flood Defence, although the origins of the figure have not been confirmed.
30 | P a g e
Penning-Rowsell, E and Willson T. 2006. Gauging the impact of natural hazards: the pattern and
cost of emergency response during flood events. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers. 31:2. 99-115.
Pielke, Jr., R.A., M.W. Downton, and J.Z. Barnard Miller, 2002: Flood Damage in the United
States, 1926–2000: A Reanalysis of National Weather Service Estimates. Boulder, CO: UCAR.
Pfurtscheller, and Schwarze n.d. “Estimating the Costs of Emergency Services During Flood
Events (PPT Only). Risk Management of Extreme Flood Event
III. Mortality and Morbidity Costs
In addition to direct monetary costs to municipalities, such as property damage, emergency
response, and damage to public infrastructure, flooding events can result in human injury and
death. In addition to the costs of care, lost work days, and other direct costs associated with
these losses, morbidity (sickness and injury) and mortality also represent inherent monetary
value. Such costs are not borne directly by individual municipalities but rather fall on
individuals, businesses, the broader economy, and society at large although elements of these
costs may also have fiscal impacts on municipalities. These costs are used by federal agencies
such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in weighing the economic efficiency of
various regulations and policies. As such, consideration of the monetary values of mortality and
morbidity risks are appropriate in evaluating the potential damages of flooding and the benefits
of mitigation strategies.
The monetary measure of fatal risk used by the EPA – known as the “value of a statistical life” –
does not refer to the value of any known single individual’s life. Rather, it is designed to
capture the premium that people would be willing to pay in exchange for a reduction in fatal
risk over an exposed population. The EPA website offers the following example:
Suppose each person in a sample of 100,000 people were asked how much he or
she would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risk of dying of 1 in
100,000, or 0.001%, over the next year. Since this reduction in risk would mean
that we would expect one fewer death among the sample of 100,000 people
over the next year on average, this is sometimes described as "one statistical life
saved.” Now suppose that the average response to this hypothetical question
was $100. Then the total dollar amount that the group would be willing to pay to
save one statistical life in a year would be $100 per person × 100,000 people, or
$10 million. This is what is meant by the "value of a statistical life.”
31 | P a g e
The EPA currently recommends a “value of a statistical life” of $7.4 million (in 2006 dollars) to
be used in regulatory impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis of EPA policies.5 Similarly,
“willingness to pay” to avoid illness or injury is also frequently cited in analyses of
environmental policies and regulations.6
A model that forecasts damages associated with a flood event could incorporate estimates of
the risk of injury or fatality, and the dollar damages associated with that risk and its mitigation.
This would result in a more complete representation of the losses associated with flood events.
It would require an estimate of the incidence of mortality and injury as a result of flood
severity. That incidence would be applied to the exposed population to get an estimate of the
expected number of premature deaths and injury expected at different levels of flood severity.
That expected number of premature deaths and injuries could be converted to a willingness to
pay estimate to obtain an estimate of the social costs of these deaths and injuries and hence
form the basis of estimates of additional costs, beyond the municipal costs previously
discussed, of flooding events. Symmetrically, these would be estimates of benefits, i.e., the
health damages avoided if mitigation strategies reduce flood severity and its associated human
health risks.
IV. Ecosystem Services Benefits
There is an extensive peer-reviewed literature in the interface of economics and ecology that
estimates the monetary value of the annual flow of ecosystem benefits that are generated by
natural capital (forests, marshes, estuaries, beaches, open fresh water, etc.). The seminal study
by Costanza, et al. (1997) ambitiously attempted global estimates of the value of such services
by land type. That pioneering study resulted in a large number of further studies that have
both extended and refined the methodology of the measurement of such benefits and applied
it to many different areas and land use issues (e.g., Freeman, 2003, and Howarth and Farber,
2002). A related and also large number of studies analyze how such benefit estimates can be
appropriately transferred and applied to other specific geographic sites (e.g., Plummer, 2009,
Navud and Ready, 2007, and Spash and Vatn, 2006).
5 “See Frequently Asked Questions on Mortality Risk Valuation” on the EPA website at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/MortalityRiskValuation.html, the EPA’s Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses, Appendix B (http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-
22.pdf/$file/EE-0568-22.pdf) and a more technical discussion of the practice at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0563-1.pdf/$file/EE-0563-1.pdf. The federal Office of
Management and Budget circular “Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under Executive Order 12866”
provides further guidance in the use of these measures (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_riaguide). 6 See, for example, Dickie, Mark and Shelby Gerking, “Willingness to Pay for Reduced Morbidity,” presentation for
the workshop Economic Valuation of Health for Environmental Policy: Assessing Alternative Approaches, March 18-
19, 2002 (http://www.bus.ucf.edu/documents/economics/workingpapers/2002-07.pdf).
32 | P a g e
In the current context, flood mitigation strategies involving buyouts and the subsequent
restoration of natural flood plain acreage in the Raritan River watershed offer the likelihood
that there will be additional benefits to these investments beyond the various private and
public cost savings discussed previously. Such ecosystem service benefits are social in nature,
i.e., they would accrue to the broader society as a result of the restoration of the natural
riparian area. There are issues about whether a threshold amount of restoration (e.g., in terms
of a minimum amount of acreage) must exist before these benefits occur and there are
additional technical questions about the applicability of applying estimates done for other areas
to the Raritan River watershed. In addition, municipalities may incur some costs in maintaining
such restored areas and/or converting them for recreational or other uses. Accordingly, we
offer the following estimates as an example of applying such ecosystem service values to the
Raritan River watershed. This application of a benefit transfer technique for flood mitigation
policy is illustrative, but we believe it is worthy of further research and refinement.
Specifically, we take the estimates of ecosystem service benefits in New Jersey used by Liu, et
al. (2010) and apply them to the Raritan River watershed. The Liu et al. study is an example of
the benefits transfer approach. Liu et al. took meta-analysis estimates from the peer-reviewed
literature for specific benefit types by various land use categories and applied those estimates
to New Jersey. It also applied various discount rates to the future annual flow of ecosystem
service benefits.7 The result was a series of shadow price estimates of the annual value of
these ecosystem services by acre by 12 types of benefit (e.g., water supply, soil retention, water
regulation, nutrient regulation, waste treatment, aesthetic and recreational, etc.) and by 13
land cover types (e.g., fresh water wetland, forest, estuary, riparian buffer, etc.).
For riparian buffer acreage in New Jersey, Liu uses a value of $3,382 (in 2004 dollars) per acre as
the estimate of the annual monetary value of eco-service benefits. It consists almost entirely
of benefits attributable to water supply and aesthetic and recreation enhancements. The Liu
study applies this to an estimated 15,146 acres of riparian buffer land cover in New Jersey. The
result is an annual estimate of $51 million in ecosystem service benefits attributable to riparian
buffer land in the state in 2004 dollars. The table below reports the results from the Liu study
for all land use types and lists the annual values of estimated service flows. The total annual
value of all ecosystem service benefits in New Jersey for all land cover types is estimated at
$11.59 billion (in 2004 dollars).
7 There is an extensive and on-going debate on the appropriate social rate of discount to use in such studies where
the annual benefits of natural capital extend over multiple generations (see, e.g., the seminal article, Weitzman,
1998).
33 | P a g e
When adjusted to 2011 dollars (by the Consumer Price Index), the annual benefit per acre of
riparian buffer land is $4,028 per acre. It is this value that could be used to estimate the
additional social benefits in the form of the value of the ecosystem services from restored
riparian buffer acres in the Raritan River watershed. Additional research is warranted to
examine the robustness of this estimate and what minimal acreage requirement is needed to
apply it to relatively small parcels of reclaimed riparian buffer land attributable to buyouts and
other related flood damage mitigation policies.
Source: Liu, et al. “Valuing New Jersey’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: A Spatially
Explicit Benefit Transfer Approach,” Environmental Management, Vol. 45, 2010.
34 | P a g e
References
Costanza, R., et al., “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital” Nature,
Vol. 387, 1997, pp. 253-260.
Freeman, A.K. III, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Resources for the
Future, Washington, D.C., 2003.
Howarth, R.B. and Farber, S. “Accounting for the Value of Ecosystem Services” Ecological
Economics, Vol. 41, 2002, pp. 421-482.
Liu, Shuang et al., “Valuing New Jersey’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: A Spatially
Explicity Benefit Transfer Approach,” Environmental Management, Vol. 45, 2010 pp. 1271-1285.
Navrud, S. and Ready, R. (eds.), Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods, Springer,
Dordecht, The Netherlands, 2007.
Plummer, M.L. “Assessing Benefit Transfer for the Valuation of Ecosystem Services” Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7, 2009, pp. 38-45.
Spash, C.L. and Vatn, A. “Transferring Environmental Value Estimates: Issues and Alternatives”
Ecological Economics, Vol. 60, 2006, pp. 379-388.
Weitzman, M.L. “Why the Far-distant Future Should Be Discounted at its Lowest Possible Rate”
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 36, 1998, pp. 335-342.
35 | P a g e
V. Impact of Floods on House Prices
Beyond the costs discussed above there are the potential costs to all homeowners (and
businesses) located in a flood plain due to the lower property values of simply being in that
location with its elevated risk of flood damages beyond those of similar properties located
outside of flood plains. This section examines the literature that has attempted to empirically
estimate the discount in property values attributable to a location in a flood plain. These are
costs that accrue to individual property owner and may have extensions to the municipalities
due to their impact on assessed values of property. Note that these costs fall on a broader
segment of the community beyond those directly damaged by flood.
There is a robust literature that has attempted to estimate the effects on property values of
being located in a flood plain. The dominant methodology is an examination of the effect of
location on house prices using hedonic models. Studies have used the hedonic pricing model
to determine the value of homes located in floodplains compared to homes of similar
characteristics not located in a floodplain. Other studies use willingness to pay models to
determine the price homebuyers are willing to pay to live within or outside a floodplain. Most
of these hedonic and willingness to pay studies use property price differentials as a way to
reflect the expected loss associated with a hazard (e.g., a flood). The price that consumers are
willing to pay is determined by examining the prices of similar homes in and out of the flood
hazard zone. Many of the studies assume that the reduction in value would be equal to the
present value of the costs of all future flood insurance premiums (Harrison et al, 2001).
Alternatively, some researchers have begun to use behavioral economics and the sociology of
risk to understand how flood prone homes affect house price. The annotated literature review
provided here offers several examples of studies using these models. Below is a brief overview
of the findings.
Most of the studies use location in a floodplain as a measure of potential damages to future
house prices. This makes it difficult to identify the price differences between location in
floodplain versus damages due to flood. In a meta-analysis done in 1998 by the US Army Corps
of Engineers of 13 academic studies, more than half (8) estimate a model where a variable of
the 100 year floodplain is used regardless of where in the floodplain the house is located. Half
of these show a price discount for location, half do not. The authors note these studies are
inconclusive and expected to be so because this model implies that the flood risk is equal across
the 100-year floodplain. In reality, flood risk will vary depending on where homes in the
floodplain are located. Four studies looked at the impact of flood insurance programs and all
found the capitalized value of flood insurance premiums is discounted from property values.
However, only about a fourth of property owners purchase flood insurance, so it cannot be
assumed that all property owners discount for primary flood damages. Three researches
studied property values in a period following a flood: none found a discount in price over the
36 | P a g e
long term, one found a drop in prices followed by a recovery with recovery being slower for
houses with more frequent flooding (Chao et al, 1998).
In general, the studies included in this literature review that use hedonic price models show
that homes located within the 100 year flood plains sell for less than equivalent homes outside
of the flood plain (Daniel et al, 2005; Dei-Tutu, 2002; Harrison et al., 2001; Fridgen and Shultz,
1999). While studies were conducted in a wide geographic range covering North Carolina,
Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota and Minnesota-all showed some decrease in home price sales
over time for homes located in the flood plain. The extent of the difference in price varies from
an average of $8,255, or 6.2% of the house sales price in a North Carolina study (Dei-Tutu,
2002), a fairly similar average of $8,990 which is approximately 81% of the price depreciation
associated with required flood insurance premiums was found in North Dakota (Fridgen and
Shults, 1999). In the North Dakota study, authors also measured house prices after extensive
flooding actions in 1997, and found homes in the 100-year floodplain were on average priced
$10,241 less than similar homes located outside the floodplain and before the 1997 flood
event. This perhaps means that more recent flooding events have had an increased impact on
house prices.
A meta-analysis of 16 studies conducted in 2005 explored the determinants of implicit price of
risk of flooding (Daniel et al, 2005). The meta-analysis showed the selling prince of a house
located in the standard 100-year floodplain is on average 2.1% lower than a similar house
located outside the zone at risk. The study also showed that when a house buyer has the
opportunity to gain new information about flood damage, the implicit price of risk gets higher.
This supports the idea that with better information, homebuyers make assess risk more
accurately (Daniel et al, 2005). Finally, a study in Florida examined the direct cost of flood plain
location on housing values while not assuming the reduction in house price would be equal to
the present value cost of future flood insurance premiums. This study looked at the 1994
National Flood Insurance Reform Act to understand if there were pricing differences before and
after the reform went into place. The authors examined the valuation of homes located within
the 100 year flood plains and found that indeed the price differential is less than the present
value of future insurance premiums. In this study, before the 1994 act properties located in
100-year flood plain were priced nearly $1,000 lower than observationally equivalent housing
units outside the zone, less than the present value cost of all future catastrophic insurance
premiums (Harrison et al., 2001). After the 1994 Act, the price differential increased to $2,000,
which may reflect the increase in house prices after 1994.
Other ways to address the effect of flood plain on house prices include methods such as spline
regression and willingness to pay models. A study in New Orleans that uses spline regression
confirms findings in earlier studies that house prices within flood plains were lower than those
outside. Much of this reduction can be attributed to mandatory flood insurance coverage.
Moreover, while unexpected flooding does increase the insurance cost capitalization, repeated
flooding does not seem to reduce property values further (Speyer et al., 1991). A study in
37 | P a g e
Louisiana developed a model to estimate consumers’ willingness to pay for a reduction in the
probability of flooding hazard in an urban area. For homes in the flood zone, the full differential
for flood zone prices equals the sum of the 1) sales price differential 2) the capitalized cost of
differential insurance premiums and 3) the difference in non-insurable costs (MacDonald et al.,
1990).
Some researchers have criticized the hedonic and other price models because they are based
on the assumptions about efficient markets and rational decision makers (Pryce et al, 2011).
These authors incorporate behavioral economics into their analysis to attempt to get a better
understanding as to why homeowners may be willing to overlook risks of living in floodplains.
These authors use myopic and amnesiac risk assessment by housing market actors to develop
an alternative theoretical explanation. Myopia refers to discounting information from
anticipated future events and amnesia means discounting information from past events. The
authors theorize that individuals will discount information regarding the future (or the risk of
future flood events) for a variety of reasons; including whether or not they have an example in
their mind of a high risk event. The lack of information about potential events may impact
individuals’ perception of future events. Additionally individuals tend to value current
information more heavily than past events, so they may not take into account prior flooding
events. The authors also warn of the non-linear dimension of myopia and amnesia, meaning
that as flood events become more frequent, there may be a ‘tipping point.’ This tipping point
would occur as the amnesia principle becomes less prevalent (people begin to think about and
remember floods) and house prices then could show more dramatic changes. While mainly
theoretical, this article offers a new perspective by which to understand how future house price
values in risky areas may respond especially when the likelihood of floods gets greater. The
repetition of flood events in the Raritan watershed over the last decade may offer a real world
experience of this tipping point concept.
Below is a taxonomy of selected empirical studies of the literature relating house prices to flood
events.
38 | P a g e
Literature Review: The Effect of Floodplain Location on House Prices
Title Author Organization/J
ournal Year Objective Main Findings Method
Area of
Study
Flood Hazards,
Insurance and
House Prices-A
Hedonic
Property Price
Analysis
Afua Dei-
Tutu
East Carolina
University,
Department of
Economics
2002 Estimates the effects of
flood hazards on
residential property
values.
The market value of a house
located within a floodplain is
significantly lower than an
equivalent house located outside
the floodplain. Price differentials
range from $5000 to $11,000 for
houses sold between $50,000-
$225,000 (average house $8,255).
An average house located in a
floodplain is discounted by 6.6
percent of property value.
Estimates hedonic property
price function using data from
floodplain mapping, property
parcel data, and Pitt County GIS.
Marginal effect for flood
variable implies that location
within floodplain lowers
property value by $8,472
representing about 6.2% of
average house sales price.
Pitt County,
North
Carolina
Flood Hazard
Pricing and
Insurance
Premium
Differentials:
Evidence From
the Housing
Market
MacDonal
d,White,
Taube,
Hauthe
Journal of Risk
and Insurance
1990 Model is developed of
the rational consumer's
willingness to pay for a
marginal reduction in
the probability of
flooding occurring in
the residential location
decision. Methodology
is developed for
estimating consumer
willingness to pay for a
reduction in the
probability of flooding
hazard in an urban area
For homes located in the flood
zone, the full differential for flood-
zone prices (adjusting for other
characteristics) equals the sum of:
(1) the sales price differential, (2)
the capitalized cost of differential
insurance premiums and (3) the
difference in noninsurable costs. If
full insurance is assumed with no
noninsurable costs then market
efficiency implies that (1) and (2)
be equivalent. The sales price
differential equaled the change in
insurance costs for three different
priced homes at a 2.47 percent to
3.78 percent discount rate in
perpetuity.
Housing characteristics and
selling prices were determined
from all properties sold between
January, 1988 and July, 1988.
Monroe,
Louisiana
39 | P a g e
Environmental
Determinants
of Housing
Prices: The
Impact of Flood
Zone Status
Harrison,
Smersh
and
Schwartz
Journal of Real
Estate
Research
2001 Examines the valuation of
homes located within 100
year flood plains
Comparable characteristic homes
located within a flood zone sell, on
average, for less than homes outside
flood zones. Price differential is less
than the present value of future flood
insurance premiums. Property tax
assessors have slightly over assessed
properties located in flood zones
relative to other areas. Properties
located in 100 year flood plain priced
nearly $1000 lower than
observationally equivalent housing
units outside zone
Database of 29,887
property transactions.
Hedonic price Model
Alachua
County
Florida
Housing Prices
and Flood Risk:
An Examination
Using Spline
Regression
Speyer
and Ragas
Journal or Real
Estate Finance
and Economics
1991 Within areas with
extensive flood insurance
coverage and recurring
actual flood risk, are
property values
significantly lower?
Second, do differences in
insurance cost explain
property value reduction
in flood-prone areas?
Finally, does recurring
urban rain runoff flooding
change the magnitude of
the adverse effect on
property values?
Confirms the finding of earlier studies
that location in a floodplain does
reduce property values. The present
study, using spline variables to adjust
for locational variation in the data and
an improved measure of insurance cost,
reveals that much of this reduction can
be attributed to mandatory flood
insurance coverage. Moreover, while
unexpected flooding does increase the
insurance cost capitalization, repeated
flooding does not seem to reduce
property values further
Time-series data base of
about 2,000 sales drawn
from the metropolitan area
with the highest flood
claims in the past decade--
New Orleans. Two
neighborhoods of differing
age and character (urban
versus suburban) were
studied.
spline variables into
regression equations which
make
it possible to isolate the
impact of flood risk from
other locational variables.
The cost of mandatory
flood insurance enters as a
rate index in the analysis to
limit the correlation
between flood insurance
premiums and house value
when trying to determine
the capitalization of
insurance cost
New
Orleans, LA
40 | P a g e
Empirical
Studies of
Effect of Flood
Risk on
Housing prices
Chao,
Floyd,
Holliday
US Army Corps
of Engineers
1998 Can empirical be found
that flood damage borne
by flood plain activities
are or are not capitalized
into the fair market value
of floodplain properties
None of the 13 studies attempted to
directly search for evidence of a
discount for primary flood damages.
Most studies attempt to detect discount
for location in floodplain. •8 studies
used model where variable of 100 yr
floodplain without regard to where in
floodplain. Half show discount for
location exists, half do not. Capitalized
value of flood insurance premiums
appears to be discounted from property
values •3 researchers studied
property values in period following a
flood. none found a discount in price
over the long term. one observed a
drop in prices followed by a recovery,
with recovery being slower for houses
with more frequent flooding.
Literature review of 13
studies
13
academic
studies and
2 case
studies in
Abilene TX
and South
Frankfort
Kentucky
Flood Damage
in the United
States, 1926-
2000 A
reanalysis of
National
Weather
Service
Estimates
Pielke,
Downton,
Miller
National
Center for
Atmospheric
Research
2002 Attempting to identify
accurate data for flood
costs and vulnerability to
estimate flood damage.
NWS data was reasonably consistent
from 1934-2000, except during 1976-
1982. Individual damage estimates(less
then $50 million) for small floods or
local jurisdictions within a larger flood
area tend to be extremely inaccurate.
Estimates are better when damage is
above $500 million. Floods causing
moderate damage are occasionally
omitted or damage underestimated.
*Better damage data are needed to
evaluate effectiveness of specific
mitigation measures designed to
reduce flood losses.
Report reanalyzes flood
damage estimates collected
by the National Weather
Service (NWS) from 1925
and 2000. NWS has
maintained long term
record of flood damage
throughout US.
41 | P a g e
Report of
Delaware River
Flood
Mitigation
New Jersey
Mitigation Task
Force
2006 Addresses inadequacies
following floods of 2004
and 2005. Prepares a
series of
recommendations for
local governments in
planning and preparing
for flooding.
Multiple recommendations for better
preparedness for municipalities and
homeowners. Recommendations
include "floodplain acquisition will be
key to state flood control efforts.
Removal of structures and restoration
of floodplain areas provides permanent
protection for participating flood
victims while at the same time
providing floodplain restoration that
provides flood control and other
environmental and quality of life
benefits to the rest of the community."
Result of task force
initiative with interviews,
economic analysis etc.
Delaware
River Flood
Basin (some
discussion
of Raritan
River) New
Jersey
Flooding in the
Red River
Basin-Lessons
from Post
Flood Activities
Simonovic
and
Carson
Natural
Hazards
2003 How does flood
management affect
economic losses after
flooding.
Develops recommendations to address
floodplain including modifying
floodplain, upgrading infrastructure,
modify structures in floodplain. (note.
No recommendation to buy out
properties.)
Economic analysis, looked
at reports by various
taskforces.
Red River
Basin,
Minnesota
and Canada
River Flooding
and Housing
Values: An
Economic
Assessment of
Environmental
Risk
Daniel,
Florax and
Rietveld
European
Regional
Science
Association
2005 Meta analysis of hedonic
price models to assess
whether the variation in
the percentage change in
the price of a house
located in a floodplain, as
compared to houses
outside the floodplain, is
merely due to sampling
variation or can be
associated with structural
differences.
Choice of explanation of variables in
hedonic price functions affects
variability between estimates, as well
as type of data. Wealthy house buyers
tend to have a lower willingness to pay
to reduce the risk o flood, level of
income protects from risk vulnerability.
Type of data (cross-section or not)
influences effect size.
Meta-analysis of 16 studies National
The Influence
of the Threat of
Flooding on
Housing Values
in
Fargo, North
Fridgen
Shultz
North Dakota
State
University
Agricultural
Economics
Report No. 417
1999 Throughout this
century, most recently in
1997, there have been
several 100+ year flood
events. For this
reason, a number of flood
Being located in the 100-year
floodplain lowered the sale price of an
average home by $8,990 and
approximately 81% of the price
depreciation was associated with
required flood insurance premiums.
The hedonic valuation
method (HVM) of 3,783
Fargo-Moorhead homes in
this study sold between
January 1995 and August
1998
Fargo,
North
Dakota and
Moorhead,
Minnesota
42 | P a g e
Dakota and
Moorhead,
Minnesota
damage control projects
are continuing to be
proposed and
implemented which
include home buyouts,
levee systems, and more
stringent floodplain
management and
regulation.
Many of the specific costs
and benefits of these
projects are not well
known, such
as how flooding or a
reduction in the threat of
flooding influences
housing values. This
uncertainty makes it
difficult to assess the cost
effectiveness of flood
control projects.
After the extensive 1997 flood, homes
in the 100-year floodplain were on
average priced
$10,241 less than similar homes located
outside the floodplain and before the
1997 flood event. The aftermath of
publicity of the 1997 flood was
specifically responsible for
average 100-year floodplain homes
being reduced by an additional $1,350.
In contrast, homes in the 500-year
floodplain on average sold for $3,100
more than similar homes not
in the floodplain.
The Impact of
Floods on
House Prices:
An Imperfect
Information
Apprach with
Myopia and
Amnesia
Price,
Chen and
Galster
Housing
Studies
2011 Alternative method to
hedonic price models,
using behavioral
economics and sociology
of risk theories.
Theoretical analyis of how myopia
(undervaluing future events) and
amnesia (undervaluing past events)
may impact home prices in relation to
floods. A non linear relationship is
possible in future house prices as
events become more frequent, and a
'tipping' point for house prices may be
possible.
Theoretical
article.
The Rising
Costs of Floods
Brody,
Zahran,
Magehelal
, Grover
and
Highfield
Journal of
American
Planning
Association
2007 Article looks at impacts of
built environment on
house prices affected by
floods. Looks at wetland
alteration, the presence
of dams and impervious
surfaces.
The built environment does affect the
impact of flooding. In this case,
alteration of naturally occurring
wetlands significantly increases the
property damage caused by floods, all
else equal.
Using data from Spatial
Hazard Event and Losses
Database to analyze 383
flood events
Florida,
1997-2001
43 | P a g e
References
Chao, P., Floyd J., and W Holliday. (1998) “Empirical Studies of Effect of Flood Risk on Housing
prices.” US Army Corps of Engineers.
Daniel, Florax and Rietveld (2005) “River Flooding and Housing Values: An Economic
Assessment of Environmental Risk.” European Regional Science Association.
Dei-Tutut, A., (2002) “Flood Hazards, Insurance and House Prices-A Hedonic Property Price
Analysis.” East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
Fridgen, P. and S. Shultz (1999)"The Influence of the Threat of Flooding on Housing Values in
Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota."North Dakota State University Agricultural
Economics Report No. 417.
Harrison, D., G. Smersh, and A. Schwartz. (2001) “Environmental Determinants of Housing
Prices: The Impact of Flood Zone Status.” Journal of Real Estate Research 21: 3-20.
MacDonald, D., H. White, P. Taube, and W. Huth. (1990) “Flood Hazard Pricing and Insurance
Premium Differentials: Evidence from the Housing Market.” Journal of Risk and Insurance 57:
654-63.
New Jersey Mitigation Task Force (2006). Report of Delaware River Flood Mitigation.
Pryce, G., Y. Chen and G. Galaster (2010). The Impact of Floods on House Prices: An Imperfect
Information Approach with Myopia and Amnesia. Housing Studies. 26:2. 259-279.
Shabman, L. and D, Damianos (1976). “Flood hazard effects on residential property values.”
Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division. 151-62.
Simonovic, and Carson (2003) “Flooding in the Red River Basin-Lessons from Post Flood
Activities.” Natural Hazards. 28, 345-365.
Speyer, J. and W. R. Ragas. 1991. Housing Prices and Flood Risk: An Examination using Spline
Regression. Journal of Real Estate and Finance Economics 4: 395-407.
Turnbull G., Zahirovic-Herbert V., and Mothorpe C., (2007) “Flooding and Liquidity on the
Bayou: The Capitalization of Flood Risk into House Value and Ease-of-Sale.” University of
Central Florida. Dr. P. Phillips School of Real Estate Working Paper 1107
44 | P a g e
RISK MODELING
Note: A full Risk Modeling Report is forthcoming. The following summarizes the work to date.
The CCICADA component of the project has developed an integrated model that works with
a hydrological model of the Raritan basin. This model takes historical rainfall data, and has
been calibrated to describe the behavior of one selected river gage, during a significant 2007
flooding event. In addition, published data on the effectiveness of Green Infrastructure has
been used to compute the reduction in runoff from each sub-basin, and thus the reduced gage
height at the selected gage.
In a second component of the research, the team has developed a non-linear, threshold-
based model that relates the cumulated or integrated amount of river activity above flood
level, to the FEMA payouts, using historical data on both. This model achieves excellent
predictive behavior against historical data, and can be used to relate the hydrological model
directly to FEMA payout records.
In a third component of the research, the team has developed a conceptual model of the
relation among meteorological activity, hydrological models, infrastructure intervention, and
fine grained topography. This model can serve as a conceptual foundation for informed
communication with local decision makers. Completion of that line of research is contingent on
further study of (a) the detailed topography, requiring LIDAR surveys, and (b) elicitation of
stakeholder perspectives with regard to the relative importance of several measures of impact
(loss of business; loss of personal property; development of recreation; property values; etc).
Together, these components show that linking of meteorology, hydrology, non-linear
modeling and sophisticated elicitation can provide a very powerful tool for informing and
guiding discussion among all stakeholders. The present study, yielding non-linear models for
four towns, and hydrological models linked to one of these, provides a proof of principle,
and a basis for estimating the costs of extending the model to the entire basin.
Initial Results
The team has developed a framework for flood mitigation risk analysis through a conceptual
model of the relation among meteorological activity, hydrological models, infrastructure
intervention, fine-grained topography, and economic impact. This model can serve as a
conceptual foundation for informed communication among stakeholders and a framework for
risk analysis of alternative flood mitigation strategies. We have experimented with detailed
elaboration of several components of this model, a hydrological model that allows us to relate
flood mitigation strategies to water levels, and a nonlinear econometric model that allows us to
relate several water-level-related variables to FEMA insurance payouts.
We have developed a hydrological model that can be applied in to Raritan basin. This model
takes historical rainfall data, and has been calibrated to describe the behavior of one selected
45 | P a g e
river gage during a significant 2007 flooding event. We have chosen one example of a
mitigation strategy as a case in point to explore and develop the methodology, specifically
Green Infrastructure.
We used published data on the effectiveness of Green Infrastructure to compute the
reduction in runoff from one relevant Watershed Management Area and thus the reduced gage
height at the selected gage.
In the econometric effort, the team has developed a non-linear, threshold-based model that
relates the cumulated or integrated amount of river activity above flood level to the FEMA
payouts, using historical data on both. This model was tested for four communities, and it
achieves excellent predictive behavior against historical data, and can be used to relate the
hydrological model directly to FEMA payout records. Many possible explanatory variables were
considered, and the most effective was found to be the aggregated quantity of water above
flood level during the time directly associated to the flooding event that caused the claims and
payouts.
When these two streams of research are combined, the first is used to compute the effect of
Green Infrastructure, on the flow of water associated with an event. The second is used to
calculate the corresponding decrease in total FEMA payouts. We applied this to one community,
Manville, using data for a storm like that in 2007. Based on our models, the estimated cost
savings due to Green Infrastructure in the region affecting the Manville Gage Station is about
$6.1M, for a 68% reduction in FEMA payouts, which are estimated at $8.8M without the
mitigation. Presumably there are comparable benefits for other regions that are flooded in the
Raritan basis. However, the cost of the Green Infrastructure mitigation is estimated at between
$6B and $18B for the given region. Thus, even if our computations are off by several orders of
magnitude, this says that Green Infrastructure is not a cost-effective flood mitigation strategy in
the Raritan Basin.
Our effort has not addressed some of the detailed components needed for a complete risk
analysis, e.g., further study of the detailed topography, requiring LIDAR surveys; and ways to
include other measures of flood impact such as loss of business, loss of personal property,
development of recreation, changes in property values, and psychological impact of repeated
flooding events.
These two modeling projects are experimental and involve some significant simplifying
assumptions. Moreover, they are limited to only a part of the Raritan Basin and to a few
selected towns. However, linked into our overall proposed framework, they show that it is
feasible to use novel and sophisticated modeling tools in doing flood mitigation risk analysis.
Our effort has demonstrated that linking of meteorology, hydrology, non-linear econometric
modeling and sophisticated elicitation can provide a very powerful tool for informing and
guiding discussion among all stakeholders. The present study, yielding non-linear models for
four towns and hydrological models linked to one of these provides a proof of principle, a basis
for estimating the costs of extending the model to the entire basin, and a roadmap for doing
model-based and data-based risk analyses.
46 | P a g e
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Participants in the Municipal Surveys
Bound Brook Borough Administrator, Engineer, Supervising Technician with Engineering Firm Clinton Township Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Engineer, Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Coordinator Edison Township Mayor, Engineer, Business Administrator, OEM Specialist Englishtown Borough OEM Coordinator, Borough Clerk, Councilman Freehold Township Administrator, Township Engineer Hightstown Borough Mayor, Engineer, Borough Administrator Hopewell Township Mayor, Clerk, Chief of Police, Township Administrator Manville Borough Borough Administrator, OEM Coordinator Milltown Borough Mayor, Borough Engineer Middlesex Borough Mayor, Borough Clerk, CFO Monroe Township Engineer/OEM Coordinator Raritan Township Mayor, Engineer, Deputy OEM Coordinator, OEM Coordinator Scotch Plains Township Mayor, Township Engineer, OEM Coordinator, Assistant Engineer, Woodbridge Township Mayor, Redevelopment Agency Director, OEM Director, Intern, Principal Engineer Washington Township Mayor, OEM Coordinator, Engineer Watchung Borough Mayor, Borough Clerk, OEM Coordinator/Fire Official, Engineer
47 | P a g e
Appendix B: Maps
Map 1. Municipalities of Raritan River Regional Watershed Basin with Topography
48 | P a g e
Map 2. FEMA payouts by municipality 1978-2011 (prior to Hurricane Irene, August, 2011)
49 | P a g e
Map 3. Impervious Surfaces across the Watershed
50 | P a g e
Appendix C: Our Green and Blue Infrastructure 1.0
Our Blue and Green Infrastructure:
New Directions for Stormwater, Flood Mitigation and Management in the
Raritan River Basin: Version 1.0
The Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council
March 16, 2012
Introduction
On October 19, 2011, Rutgers University President Richard L. McCormick invited engineers from
firms working across the state and beyond to discuss stormwater and flood mitigation and
management in the Raritan River region. The purpose of this roundtable was the development
of a regional watershed ethic, foundations for education and a united response to these issues
among professionals and officials managing within the Raritan River watershed.
Welcomed by Dr. Michael R. Greenberg, Rutgers University representation at the roundtable
include Dr. James Hughes, Dean of the E. J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Dean
Thomas N. Farris of the Rutgers School of Engineering, and Robert M. Goodman, Executive
Dean of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the School of Environmental and Biological
Sciences. Michael Moriarty, Deputy Regional Administrator, represented our sponsoring
partner, FEMA Region II. Assistant Commissioner Marilyn Lennon represented the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection. Middlesex County Freeholder Jim Polos, a strong
advocate for a regional approach to mitigation and management of our natural resources,
represented county government.
With the support of the University President and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Sustainable Raritan River Regional
Engineering Council was created and leaders from this group convened work groups to develop
a Version 1.0 of Our Blue and Green Infrastructure: New Directions for Stormwater, Flood
Mitigation and Management in the Raritan River Basin. We thank them for their leadership
and their expertise.
The purpose of this effort is to foster a dialogue among key regional stakeholder and within the
engineering, planning and public management communities – and with the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection – to put forth constructive ideas on how to address
51 | P a g e
water quality and flood impacts in the collective rivers and streams of the Raritan River, for
New Jersey, and for the region.
The Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council
Special thanks to Stacy Perrine for her expert management in this effort. We welcome and
encourage comments and responses. Comments may be emailed to the Council at:
For additional information and proceedings from the October 19 meeting, visit
www.raritan.rutgers.edu.
Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and
should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or
implied, of the US Department of Homeland Security.
Abstract
This paper includes recommendations to aid in critical areas of stormwater and flood mitigation
and management of our “blue Infrastructure” including:
Policy
Regulations
Funding
Professional Education
Public Education
For each topic, a problem statement is presented, along with proposed solutions and future
direction.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Green Infrastructure as an approach to,
“maintain healthy waters, provide multiple environmental benefits and support sustainable
communities.” We have added “blue” to sharpen our focus on the water component and the
integration of natural and non-structural strategies to implement green infrastructure
solutions.
Blue infrastructure focuses on the idea that less intensive projects can be done in the region
that would incorporate the ecological amenities into the very projects meant to protect them,
instead of larger-scale infrastructure projects which tend to be much more costly and possibly
detrimental to the environment.
52 | P a g e
The purpose of this white paper is to encourage discussion among key audiences (the public,
professionals in the field, and government officials) on problems encountered and offer
solutions that can be embraced at the regional level to bring to bear useful blue infrastructure
projects and initiatives that are cost effective and environmentally sound for the full Raritan
River Basin.
Policy
Problem Statement
While the State of New Jersey currently has various regulations and rules that direct certain
activities on the part of permitted entities, there is no formal statewide policy on flood damage
prevention or floodplain management. Rather, the state has relied on the State Stormwater
Management Regulations of new development, which requires developers to manage
stormwater to prevent increases in peak runoff rates. More recently, the state has added
regulations requiring developers to maintain groundwater recharge and remove total
suspended solids. While these regulations address the impacts from new development, the
existing built infrastructure, which is over 95% of the state footprint, goes unaddressed. The
management practices implemented under the stormwater regulations for new development
will not reduce existing flooding or improve existing water quality conditions. The best
outcome from this policy is that existing problems will not get worse; meanwhile, communities
across the state face repetitive flooding without hope of state assistance.
The Stormwater regulations do allow for Regional Stormwater Management Plans, which could
be the basis for a stronger policy, but with neither requirements nor incentives to develop
these plans, few have been developed. Plans that have been submitted to NJDEP to date have
not been reviewed. As a result, flood damage prevention and floodplain management for
existing buildings remains voluntary and the cost of addressing the underlying causes of
exacerbated local flooding (e.g., infrastructure improvements) result in continued economic
and environmental damage.
The presence of some funding from the State Blue Acres program and the federal government
provides some support for buyouts, but the overall problems remain unaddressed and their
impacts unabated. These efforts are at best an informal policy that relies largely on federal
funds and large flood control projects, such as the Green Brook Project, which is funded by the
US Army Corps of Engineers.
Without a strong policy that goes beyond new development, the existing conditions cannot
improve even with the flow reductions that are currently mandated in the stormwater rules.
Regardless of a significant turnaround in the economy, so much of the State is built out that the
positive impact of new development will only be marginal.
53 | P a g e
The final aspect of the informal policy within the state is the existence of Flood Hazard
Mitigation Plans. They exist, but have yet to be effectively implemented. Some counties are
leading the way in certain aspects, but few efforts are being coordinated regionally to address
flooding or water quality issues. Somerset County has made considerable efforts in the area of
flood warning and flood damage prevention. Cape May County has enlisted watershed groups
to deal with stormwater issues with a primary focus on improving existing water quality.
The two regional efforts currently in place are the state’s effort to restore the Barnegat Bay and the
work of the Army Corps of Engineers with the towns along the Green Brook. Apart from these two
efforts, both of which rely on substantial state or federal investments, there are only small pockets of
groups trying to address these problems at local levels. The basis of much of the work that is going on is
from the work of the New Jersey Water Supply Authority (2002) on the Raritan Basin, which included
the D&R Canal and the Mulhockaway River restoration.
During recent storms, the lower Passaic River basin received much media and political attention
however there was significant damage in other watersheds as well. The current focus on
buyouts effectively eliminates the damage for the properties purchased, but this is both
expensive and limited in terms of regionally effective mitigation. Many of the sites that are
the subject of buyouts pre-exist current flood hazard area rules and could not be built today.
These older developments will continue to consume large amounts of resources for flood
insurance payouts, property buyouts, and exact economic costs from the municipal budgets.
Policies are needed to ensure that the lands secured through buyouts are restored to riparian
floodplains that provide storage and treat stormwater runoff.
Current stormwater mitigation plans provide some assistance, but it is also constrained. When
required stormwater management cannot be met onsite, stormwater management developers
can fix problems elsewhere to meet their obligation. Since this only occurs with new
development. Limited new development means limited opportunities. Mitigation will have a
modest impact on flooding since it will only result in the same level of stormwater management
that would take place if it could be done on the site being developed unless there are wetlands
involved, in which case the rules require a two-for-one replacement. Closer coordination with
projects to identify water quality and flooding improvements could yield net benefits. One
drawback to this type of mitigation is that it requires that a property owner be willing to take
on the responsibility for the operations and maintenance of additional stormwater controls.
Absent strong enforcement, compliance is voluntary unless the owners pay into a township
mitigation bank. This ensures a more significant level of oversight and thus compliance with
the regulations. Generally, mitigation plans can be part of the solution when plans are
developed with consideration of flooding and water quality problems. Mitigation plans can be
helpful but would be significantly enhanced if they were developed in conjunction with a
regional stormwater management plan.
54 | P a g e
Regulations and Permits
As noted above, current regulations focus on permits for new construction. Even the recent
DEP stormwater rules requiring more detailed operations and maintenance manuals for
stormwater systems have little impact on pre-existing development and do not address the
need for retrofitting as a component of overall stormwater management. Additionally, there is
a significant emphasis on engineering design in solutions. The Stormwater Management
Regulations require all new development to use nonstructural stormwater management
strategies to the maximum extent practical. This is evaluated through a checklist using
spreadsheets to quantify the value of the non-structural stormwater measures. Points are
awarded based on this assessment. It is not uncommon for projects to have engineered
solutions simply because the professionals are most familiar with the structural solutions. Local
Planning Boards and Environmental Commissions, who generally review these assessments on
behalf of their communities, are also not familiar with nonstructural management practices and
consequently have little expertise in reviewing these plans or asking questions of developers
that might result in broader application of non-structural solutions.
Regulators also need to learn more about nonstructural alternatives. The regulatory
environment requires permit applications to meet the condition of ‘no adverse impact.’ When
this cannot be sufficiently demonstrated, non-structural options can be denied. This indirectly
encourages developers to continue to rely on engineered solutions. A stronger effort is needed
to coordinate the understanding of stormwater impacts of development at three levels – local,
county and state. Despite required consistency, not all adhere to the same level of review to
ensure compliance with these standards.
While a very detailed review of stormwater is conducted at the local level, there is
inconsistency among municipalities due to various levels of knowledge, experience, and
political pressures. Some local review agencies are very focused on the impacts of stormwater
and want to ensure it is effectively managed as required by the regulations. Others are more
concerned about encouraging development at all cost and do not want stormwater
management requirements to hinder the goal of potential tax ratables for the community.
Years of this practice have inadvertently created some of the downstream flooding issues that
exist today. Very often the amount of emphasis placed on stormwater impacts is directly
related to the local municipal or planning board engineer and how much he is versed in the
issues, impacts and standards. The knowledge of the Planning Board and Environmental
Commissions on the stormwater regulations plays a role in the level of compliance. When
these groups understand the rules, they can ask the appropriate questions during the review
process, thereby encouraging the developer to make the necessary changes to their design.
55 | P a g e
At the county level, the emphasis is often merely to ensure there is no impact on the nearest
county infrastructure. This can result in widely varying levels of scrutiny even within the same
county. County reviewers need to expand their reviews to ensure consistency with all state
regulations, including Residential Site Improvement Standards.
Finally, stormwater is reviewed at the state level, however not all projects get reviewed at this
level and for most the review is redundant with lower review levels. This leads to inconsistent
outcomes. When the NJDEP issues a land use permit, stormwater is reviewed and required by
the permit. But due to the inability of the state to follow up on permits, the primary
compliance agent during construction is the local municipality. The level of expertise on these
regulations varies across municipalities. The reviews of stormwater by NJDEP level has been
negatively impacted by staff reductions, re-assignments, and a general lack of familiarity with
newer practices.
Mitigation
Stormwater and flooding mitigation are two separate issues that are necessarily related but
need to be considered separately. For the purposes of discussion, “stormwater mitigation” is
that mitigation that is envisioned by the NJDEP Stormwater Rule and local Stormwater
Management Plans. “Flood mitigation” is related to the reduction of flooding or the reduction
of flood damage.
Stormwater mitigation involves the installation of stormwater improvements on one property
within a watershed to offset the impacts of development on another. Municipal stormwater
management plans are supposed to include a discussion of mitigation and the identification of
potential mitigation projects. There are several drawbacks to this approach. The first is that in
order for mitigation to have an impact, there needs to be a significant amount of it. The slow
economy and resultant low levels of development have not created substantial opportunities
for mitigation to occur. Secondly, much of the growth that is occurring involves redevelopment
of existing properties and is concentrated in growth areas. This reduces the requirement for
stormwater improvements and therefore reduces the potential for mitigation. Finally,
identification of mitigation projects is difficult since retrofitting an existing site with additional
stormwater controls requires that the “receiving” site be willing to accept the operations and
maintenance responsibilities for the new improvements. In many cases this reduces the
receiving sites to municipal projects and the budget issues facing towns will make them
reluctant to take on more maintenance responsibilities.
Flood mitigation efforts are on a much larger scale than typical stormwater improvements.
Examples of flood mitigation include constructed levee or floodwall projects, regional flood
control reservoirs and the elevation or buyout of flood prone properties. These are all
expensive, large scale propositions that require the dedication of significant funds. Finding
56 | P a g e
sources for these funds is difficult; however FEMA anticipates mitigation as part of its disaster
relief efforts. Generally, 15% of the amount of damages associated with any presidentially
declared disaster is set aside by FEMA to fund hazard mitigation projects. The update of hazard
mitigation plans is critical and should be completed annually. County and local governments
are required up review and update their FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans every five
years, however, they are encouraged to review and update the plans annually with submission
of status reports to the state (NJOEM).However local updates are often not completed. With
current hazard mitigation plans in place, local governments are eligible to apply for Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) program grants to fund eligible mitigation projects. In general,
these grants cover 75% of project costs.
Proposed Solutions
In order for there to be meaningful reduction in flooding and the damages associated with
flood events, there are a number of policy changes that need to be implemented. These
require coordination at various levels of government from the local to federal level. Policy
changes need to be implemented, however “tighter” regulations are not necessarily the
answer. It is recommended that the following policies be considered:
The state needs to further educate, advocate and generally encourage development of regional
stormwater management plans. When municipalities work together, the benefits of a regional
management plan can reduce flooding damage across many communities.
Regional plans to improve and retrofit existing developed properties needs to be incentivized.
These improvements can be for water quality or water quantity or both. The retrofitting should
include the analysis of older stormwater systems to determine how well they function (or fail)
with the current design standards. For example, there are thousands of stormwater facilities
that were designed and constructed before the rainfall amount of the 100 year design storm
was increased.
Hazard mitigation plans need to be updated and incorporated into master plans. County and
regional initiatives need to be included in hazard mitigation plans to further improve flooding
and water quality conditions (for information on county hazard mitigation plans, see:
http://www.state.nj.us/njoem/about/association.html).
Buy outs may be a solution as a mitigation effort, however the project should include more
than the removal of the structure. Contiguous properties should be consolidated into restored
floodplain land that allows for storage of flood waters and water quality. These projects should
focus on the construction of new wetlands or the expansion of existing adjacent wetlands to
restore the naturally existing floodplain.
Local code officials, floodplain administrators and NJDEP staff should be provided with
additional educational opportunities that will increase their knowledge of floodplain
57 | P a g e
management. This could be done by promoting certification by the Association of State
Floodplain Managers (ASFPM).
When brownfields are redeveloped in floodplains, there should be consideration in the
permitting process when land is converted to greenfields and naturalized floodplains.
Stormwater management designs and permitting need to have greater flexibility to encourage
non-structural or qualitative information. There needs to be a process to develop qualified
reviewers/designers who remain current with the latest BMPs from across the country. The
current BMPs in New Jersey need to be revised to promote the integration of natural and non-
structural solutions with built solutions.8
In conjunction the updates to the BMPs, a NJDEP program should be considered to prioritize
projects when they are endorsed by interdisciplinary teams of engineers and natural science
professionals (biologists, naturalists and ecologists) and include assessments of impacts to the
watershed from proposed projects. To qualify for such a program, NJDEP would certify that the
project was reviewed by an interdisciplinary team. All team members would need to be
certified stormwater professionals, possibly modeled on the recent Licensed Site Remediation
Professionals (LSRP). Once such a Licensed Stormwater Management Professional (LSMP)
program is established, with specialized training and appropriately rigorous examinations, these
LSMPs could approve plans enabling them to submit to various approval agencies without the
need for further review.
Nonstructural approaches to Stormwater management need to be discussed in broad terms
and not strictly quantitatively. This requires an ability to weigh non-structural solutions. This
will require a significant change in the standard permitting process.
Land Use Permits at NJDEP should focus not only on the existing environmental conditions in
streams but also the level of environmental value added by a project. Permits for activities
such as stream cleaning should require restoration of banks to foster recovery of stream
systems and should be dependent on a demonstration of reasonable improvements to
restoring the natural carrying capacity of streams and rivers.
County and regional initiatives should be encouraged and funded to improve flooding and
water quality conditions. Similar efforts have been successful in Cape May County and the
Barnegat Bay watershed and on the Delaware & Raritan (D&R) Canal where the New Jersey
8 A current example of the effectiveness of such a strategy is the Bluebelt of Staten Island, New York. See
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt_video.shtml
58 | P a g e
Water Supply Authority (NJWSA) is installing stormwater retrofits. These initiatives need to
address how to make improvements to existing conditions and not just regulate future
development.
Encourage the participation in the FEMA Community Rating System to improve public
education, conservation and floodplain management.
The final development of these policies needs to ensure oversight, streamlining and
coordinating of all NJDEP and FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. Ideally there
should be one agency responsible for the development and integration of these policies with
the input of all appropriate stakeholders. A commissioner-level focus on flood management or
stormwater and the benefits of coordinating planning and rulemaking would go a long way to
ensure that beneficial work is accomplished while keeping a lean, responsive and versatile
regulatory environment.
Future Direction
In moving forward, it is essential to look at efforts that articulate and build on the above policy
recommendations, including Best Management Practices from other states that explore
broader strategies to more effectively address nonstructural stormwater management
alternatives. The following references are recommended reading for those interested in
furthering a dialogue on state policy:
The Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual:
http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection-8305
ASFPM White Paper on Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Functions: Floodplain
Management—More than Flood Loss Reduction:
http://www.floods.org/PDF/WhitePaper/ASFPM_NBF%20White_Paper_%200908.pdf
FEMA report: Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning
http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4267
The Staten Island Bluebelt: a Natural Solution to Stormwater Management
Website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt.shtml
Video: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt_video.shtml
Regulations
Problem Statement
State regulations are onerous when it comes to maintenance of waterways. These Regulations
do not encourage the integration of natural systems when designing large scale flood control
projects.
59 | P a g e
Proposed Solutions
There are two recommended regulatory approaches. The first focuses on maintenance of our
waterways. The second looks at the issue on a larger scale and focuses on overall integration
with natural systems.
When the amount of water flowing through a channel exceeds its capacity there will be
flooding. While proper routine maintenance enhances the conveyance of water through a
system, it offers only a partial solution. Regulatory changes need to focus on regional corridor-
based watershed level solutions. We need to address years of neglect in stream and lake
management and then to encourage the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
to promote higher-level floodplain management through practices that ensure long-term
solutions that protect people from the volume and velocity of water resulting from current
practice. A mix of project types like stream cleaning, de-snagging, or lake dredging could be
implemented to restore lost capacity in our waterways. While volume reduction strategies can
be used on future projects to provide a reduction of peak flows and runoff volumes as well as
improving water quality. These volume reduction strategies should be included in the design of
new development related projects. A regional approach is key to the future success of the
Raritan River Basin though these longer-term solutions will require significant efforts to resolve.
Regulations involving natural resource protection in New Jersey have historically focused on
land development and with the exception of the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act have not
fostered the enhancement or restoration of the state’s natural resources. Issues such as
stormwater management and flood plain management routinely rely on engineering solutions
to manage impacts of development on our waterways and floodplains. The impacts of recent
storms show a need to move from reliance solely on engineering approaches to restore water
quality, connectivity between our streams and their floodplains and restore the ecosystem
functions in our natural systems.
This does not mean that the solutions implemented were failures but the changes to our
landscape associated with development are complex and sole reliance on engineering solutions
to offset impacts has not been sufficient to avoid stream degradation and satisfy the primary
objective of the Clean Water Act to maintain and enhance the quality of our surface waters. It
is for this reason that alternate approaches to natural resource management are essential to
maintain the ecosystem services that our rivers, wetlands and floodplains provide.
The purpose of regulatory change is to shift the focus of floodplain management away from the
conveyance of floodwaters to one that recognizes the value of riparian zones and ecosystems
as functioning floodplains; specifically the need for changes in the approach to governing
stormwater management and floodplain management and the need to refocus the objectives
of regulations to more effectively link them to the target resource and the services associated
with healthy watersheds and floodplains.
60 | P a g e
It is due to the understanding that natural areas provide functions and services that are
beneficial to the public that fostered the concept of “green infrastructure.” The US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Green Infrastructure as follows:
“Green Infrastructure is an approach that communities can choose to maintain healthy waters,
provide multiple environmental benefits and support sustainable communities. Unlike single-
purpose gray stormwater infrastructure, which uses pipes to dispose of rainwater, green
infrastructure uses vegetation and soil to manage rainwater where it falls. By weaving natural
processes into the built environment, green infrastructure provides not only stormwater
management, but also flood mitigation, air quality management, and much more.”
Green infrastructure is not limited to rain gardens and green roofs but extends to existing
natural resources such as floodplains and wetlands. An inherent element of a “green
infrastructure” approach is to recognize when the functions of the natural environment are
compromised or degraded and then use this information as the basis to restore important
ecosystem functions. This philosophy shifts the management of stormwater and floodplains
away from conveyance and our reliance on engineered approaches to a much broader
ecosystem or watershed based perspective. Additional types of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) need to be considered in order to better maintain the quality of our natural resources.
This also redirects our focus from individual developments to one that views the river and its
floodplain as a priority and seeks watershed based solutions to reduce flooding and improve
water quality. This conference title includes “blue infrastructure” in its title to emphasize the
importance of the river in future decision making.
The municipalities within the Raritan River watershed benefit in many ways from the river and
its aquatic resources or, in other words, its “blue infrastructure”. The Raritan River’s “blue
infrastructure” provides important aquatic habitat, and is an important element of our regional
commerce, recreation and quality of life. Similar to the need to maintain our built
infrastructure we need to proactively manage our blue infrastructure; New York City recently
adopted this approach by identifying its surrounding waters as its ‘sixth borough’ recognizing
that a healthy estuary is an essential element of sound land use.
To implement a watershed-based approach that integrates elements of both blue infrastructure
and green infrastructure requires a broad range of non-structural BMPs for New Jersey similar
to those embraced by Pennsylvania including natural resource restoration such as
wetland/floodplain enhancement, meadow establishment and reforestation. Pennsylvania also
relies on watershed based stormwater management plans to implement their stormwater
regulations. This approach enables municipalities within a specific watershed to tailor their
stormwater management approach to address the unique issues of their specific watershed.
The Stormwater Management Act (at N.J.A.C. 7:8 )has elements of both blue and green
infrastructure approaches discussed above, which could be realized if NJDEP encouraged
61 | P a g e
regional stormwater management plans. These plans provide municipalities within a
watershed the ability to tailor stormwater management to a specific watershed and the needs
of that watershed. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:8–3.1(b) “A regional stormwater management
plan shall address stormwater related water quality, groundwater recharge and/or water
quantity impacts of new and existing land uses in a regional stormwater management planning
area”. A specific element of the plan allows for the incorporation of “innovative stormwater
management measures and strategies such as nonpoint source pollutant trading, mitigation
strategies, or special protection measures.”
The role of a municipality to develop a watershed based mitigation planning strategy facilitates
the use of BMP options outside of the realm of structural engineering solutions to approaches
that enhance the functions of existing natural resources as well as improve flood storage and
water quality. While current regulations require a stormwater mitigation plan element for
every approved municipal stormwater plan (see 7:8-4.2(c) 11, few if any ordinances possess
language either defining or describing stormwater mitigation as it relates to the granting of a
variance or exemption from the design standards of the regulations.
Inclusion of a stormwater mitigation option would provide a municipality with greater flexibility
to guide an applicant to a sound stormwater management plan and allow for greater flexibility
when dealing with stormwater facilities that failed to meet their intended design objectives.
The matter of scale is critical to this approach as even with the integration of stormwater
mitigation plans into single municipal ordinances the impact would be if insufficient magnitude
to significantly address existing flooding or stormwater problems. Regulations need to
encourage regional approaches and create greater incentives for municipalities to work
together to eventually attain the necessary scale of projects to necessary to save flood prone
communities from the economic and personnel damage and the upheaval experienced by
communities still managing cleanups months after a flooding events.
As such there remains the need for larger more watershed based projects specifically targeted
to enhance the flood storage and water quality functions of the Raritan River and its tributaries.
These projects would be best identified though the implementation of watershed based
restoration or management plans. This regional based concept was inherent in the Regional
Stormwater Plans proposed under the Stormwater Management Act, NJAC 7:8.
Repackaging the plans as Watershed Restoration Plans (with the historic regulatory authority as
described in the regional Stormwater Management regulations) would foster local support and
make them eligible to receive 319 funding through the Division of Watershed Management.
The opportunity to receive funds to improve stormwater related issues within a watershed is
essential to correcting existing water quality problems. Within the Raritan River Basin there are
several approved plans: the Sourland Mountain Watershed Protection Plan, the Mulhockaway
Creek Stormwater Management and Watershed Restoration Plan, the Neshanic River
62 | P a g e
Watershed Restoration Plan, Cedar Grove Brook, D&R Canal Tributary Assessment and
Nonpoint Source Management Project Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan, the
Manalapan Brook Watershed Restoration Plan and the Sidney Brook Watershed Protection
Plan. Although many plans have been approved within the Raritan River watershed, they do
not cover most of the Raritan River and for the most part do not cover the most highly
developed sections of the watershed. Funding needs to be allocated to continue to develop
Watershed Restoration Plans for the sub-watershed of the Raritan River Basin.
It is also important to note that an inherent element of these regional plans was not simply to
protect resources but to identify opportunities where the functional value and overall condition
of a special water resource protection area or riparian zone can be enhanced. Although not
specifically stated the enhancement of protected and regulated resources is an essential
element of a green infrastructure focused watershed plan. It is with regard to the
enhancement of existing resources that the current regulations need to be more responsive
and in order to do so integrate a wider range of potential design approaches including those
focusing on the restoration of degraded natural resources.
An important component of a green infrastructure focused approach to the Raritan River is that
a more comprehensive view regarding the management of natural resources related to flooding
and water quality opens the door for more funding opportunities or even private sector derived
funding. For example, North Jersey RC& D received approximately $600,000 to restore a
segment of Walnut Creek in Hunterdon County and to create nearly three area of riparian
wetland designed to increase flood storage. In addition, Rockaway Township in Morris County
received $300,000 to restore an impounded floodplain. This is an example of an atypical
watershed focused BMP that falls outside of the realm of a typical engineering solutions or
BMP.
Proposed Solutions, NJDEP Regulatory-Specific
Some regulatory problems are with the regulations themselves while others are with the way
the regulations are implemented. The committee narrowed their focus to simplify regulations
and procedures on projects that enhance water quality and reduce flooding.
Since stream cleaning and lake dredging can provide both capacity and water quality benefits,
the focus was on permits that affect stream cleaning and lake or pond dredging. The
important element here is including a review of capacity to ensure the benefit of such an
action. The balance of the recommendations focus on those sections of the rules related to
restoration activities and routine maintenance.
The following sections identifies changes to the Flood Hazard Control Act and Stormwater
management Act that that would help foster green infrastructure oriented projects to improve
the flood storage and water quality.
63 | P a g e
Flood Hazard Area Control Act
Stream Restoration - The Act provides for stream restoration at 7:13–11.14 Requirement for
Bank Stabilization and Channel Restoration. Although this section of the regulation is well
conceived it is limited to just one possible element of stream and floodplain restoration. This
regulation would benefit from inclusion of other floodplain restoration focused BMPs such as
floodplain enhancement. This element of the Flood Hazard Control Act would also benefit from
the completion of what was identified as Section 8 - Bank Stabilization and Stream Restoration
of the Flood Hazard Area Control Act technical manual. True stream restoration routinely
incorporates re-directive and grade control structures in their design. The use of these
structures currently conflicts with the regulations since they constitute structures and fill in the
floodway. Currently, in order for the Department to approve these types of stream restoration
projects it necessitates the need for a Flood Hazard Area Control Act hardship waiver. The need
for a hardship waiver does not foster a position that these types of restoration projects are
encouraged by the Department and also tend to discourage potential applicants.
To encourage restoration projects designed to enhance ecosystem services, the stream
restoration Individual Permit (IP) should be broaden in its scope to incorporate more design
technique than those associated with bank stabilization. In order to foster these types of green
infrastructure focused restoration projects the fees should be waived in a similar manner as
done under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act for General Permit 16.
For other types of restoration projects such as floodplain enhancement should be included in
the Flood Hazard Control Act regulations. These projects typically require the lowering of a
floodplain to increase storage or remove legacy sediments. These projects should not be
penalized for the removal of trees in the riparian zone if the project is determined to have a net
ecological uplift after being reviewed by expert natural scientists. It is imperative that we do
not simply view protected lands as being untouchable but that all lands, including public lands,
are open to stewardship opportunities in order to restore lost or degraded ecosystem services.
Riparian Zone Mitigation – Currently riparian zone mitigation is focused singularly on the
replacement of trees or the preservation of riparian zones. In many cases the riparian zone
that is being protected or enhanced is protecting a stream that is subject to serve erosion.
Although riparian zones are an essential element of a watershed in some cases stream
restoration may be more valuable to the watershed than preserving a riparian zone. As such
increased flexibility with regard to the types of mitigation that can be done to satisfy the
regulations may be an important route to enhance water quality as well as increase flood
storage.
Sediment Removal of de minimus quantity – The removal of small quantities of sediment at
stormwater outfall locations would be facilitated if this could be accomplished through permit
by rule. The removal of small quantities of sediment as part of a maintenance schedule by a
64 | P a g e
municipality of lake association would serve to not only removes nutrients from our waterways
and lakes but would reduce the need for costly maintenance dredging.
Fees – Fees for natural resources management projects should be waived in a similar manner as
done for General Permit 16 under the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. The reduction or
elimination of fees would encourage land trusts and municipalities to consider floodplain
enhancement or restoration projects.
Stormwater Rules
Stormwater Mitigation - As described above, integration of stormwater mitigation planning into
municipal ordinances would provide local government greater flexibility in the review process
especially when a variance is needed. This will also serve as a means to address the impacts
with stormwater facilities that have failed to satisfy their design goals. Mitigation Plans are
allowed, but they are not being developed and incorporated into the local Stormwater Control
Ordinances. Development of these plans should be encouraged and they should be
incorporated into local regulations to provide more flexibility of these mitigation strategies
identified in these plans.
Stormwater Wetlands - Although this is more of an issue with the Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act rather than the Stormwater rules the designation of stormwater wetlands as
regulated resources is the primary reason that more of these very effective facilities have not
been constructed. Since these stormwater facilities are manmade structures that require
maintenance they should be encouraged rather than regulated. As long as these features are
regulated by the Department it is unlikely that they will gain acceptance.
Soil Conservation District Certification
A certification from a Soil Conservation District is not generally required for underwater
removal of sediments and debris in steams by construction machinery or for manual removal of
obstructions and debris. However, if a stream is intermittent and the disturbance area,
including a combination of sediment removal, access ways and staging areas requiring
restoration exceed 5,000 square feet, a certification from the Soil Conservation District is
required.
The basic certification application package includes a Soil Conservation District application
form, an application fee, construction plans, four sets of soil erosion and sediment control
plans, and a hydraulic engineering report if the stream velocities are affected by the stream
cleaning. These permits are somewhat routine to file; however when they are submitted, many
other requirements are placed upon applicants, particularly regarding wetlands. In many cases
the State Reviewer determines that wetland vegetation has colonized recently deposited
sediment deposits located in lakes as well as other areas including intertidal-sub tidal shallows,
and that the designation of an area as a wetland puts an applicant in a more complicated and
65 | P a g e
costly permitting process area that can kill a project. Dredging a lake to increase flood
attenuation and water quality will have NJDEP reviewer determine a need for a full wetlands
mapping and mitigation site when it is the sediment that is creating the wetlands – municipal
clients cannot afford to proceed with these needed projects.
Future Direction
Regulations need to encourage the integration of natural systems when designing large scale
flood control projects. From the Regulatory end NJDEP needs to provide education and training
in this area for their professional staff and then authorize and encourage staff reviewers to
work with applicants to develop a project. Meeting with staff reviewers will streamline the
regulations and the way that they are implemented. The Best Management Practices (BMPs)
need to be revised to include guidance on practices that encourage floodplain and riparian
enhancement.
For some types of projects it may be better to have a County or Local Agency act as the
Administrator; but it needs to simpler to maintain waterways and lakes and to link that with
regional enhancement projects.
Certain federal regulations also impact flood related projects and while that will be a significant
endeavor, it is also part of the overall discussion.
A number of other issues were discussed that warrant further encouragement including:
1) Regulations based upon the overall enhancement of a waterway
2) Net Environmental Benefit Rule
3) Easier elimination of minor mixing dams on waterways
4) Elimination of wetland consideration if wetland was created by silting in streams and
lakes
5) Examination of groundwater recharge and headwater protection
6) Transportation and conveyance of water on roadway systems and its impact on flooding
Funding
Problem Statement
In addition to the tasks of identifying existing problem areas, assessing and designing short and
long term solutions, and working those solutions into the regulatory framework, we must have
funding mechanisms in place in order to have any reasonable expectation of success. The
engineering community and the regulatory agencies have come a long way in the last 30 years
with the assessment and design tasks. We simply need a variety of funding sources available to
put them in place.
Currently, there is no means to define past, present and near future means of funding
stormwater management and flood control problems. Also, gaps exist in the defining of target
areas, the extent of funding of loans, funding administrators, and program effectiveness.
66 | P a g e
Proposed Solutions
Barnegat Bay Initiative Model
Recently, the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust (NJEIT) has announced additional funds
available for the Barnegat Bay Initiative. The Barnegat Bay initiative hopes to reduce the nitrate
level in the Bay and enhance water quality. With the Barnegat Bay Initiative, State government
support and funding have been instrumental. The need to model this process in the Raritan
region is crucial. The main difference between the two initiatives is that the Barnegat Bay is
water quality focused and, while water quality is certainly of concern in the Raritan,
infrastructure and economic impacts due to flooding are also concerns.
Political and public attention must be focused on the environmental and economic importance
of the Raritan in order to garner the financing of projects. To begin, future funding
opportunities for projects in the Raritan Region can be expanded by first assessing current
funded stormwater management/flood mitigation projects within the Watershed to explain
location significance, project metrics, and anticipated completion and outcomes. Funding
agencies should clearly see the benefit of expending funds on projects in the region.
Key Stakeholders and Funding Sources
Key stakeholders identified for assistance with funding include the New Jersey Water Supply
Authority, the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers Cooperative Extension and
the Watershed Associations and non-profits, like the New York/New Jersey Baykeeper,
Lawrence Brook Watershed Partnership, Edison Wetlands Association and the Stony Brook
Millstone Watershed Association. All of these groups have worked on restoration projects in
the Raritan River Basin. Other source of funding should include NJDEP programs for
stormwater management/flood mitigation:
• NJ Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (NJ-CREP)
• Water Quality Planning Grant Program
• Non-point Source Pollution Grants
Federal Funding Programs for Stormwater Management Flood Mitigation include:
• Clean Water Act
• National Estuary Program Grants
• EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund
In New York, the State Department of Environmental Conservation offers grants to projects
done for habitat restoration purposes. The Saw Mill River Day-Lighting Project in Yonkers, NY
received several million dollars in grants from animal protection agencies by designing
provisions for the American eel. This can serve as a model for a future funding mechanism in
New Jersey.
Other funding mechanisms to explore include:
Public Private Partnerships
67 | P a g e
Aquaculture Grant Program
Watershed Deep Harbor Estuary Program
New Jersey Water Supply Authority
Fish & Wildlife Enhancement Programs
Safe Drinking Water Act
Corporate Sponsorship
Another means of project funding could be to develop a program for corporations and entities
which would give them the opportunity to be good environmental neighbors and give them
stewardship of an area of the river. It should be a good green neighbor opportunity and the
participating corporation would receive good publicity from their sponsorship while providing
an ecological benefit. This could be modeled off of the “Adopt-a-Highway” program.
Currently, the NJ Water Supply Authority and the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association
have river-friendly programs that work with businesses with land in the watershed and the NJ
Department of Transportation could assist in signage, etc. for this opportunity.
Sponsorship for annual stream cleaning and for helping contribute towards volunteer groups to
do annual steam-cleaning events is also a funding mechanism that should be expanded in the
Raritan. As part of this project, the American Kayak and Canoe Association can get grants to
support one day clean-up programs.
Fishing is a highly visible recreational asset on the Raritan. Fishing shops located near the river
could offer sponsorship opportunities for contributing towards a healthy Raritan River that
would support the fishing industry.
Future Direction
Moving forward, clear funding sources focusing on stormwater and flood mitigation and
management should be available to projects with a demonstrated regional reach. While water
quality is vital, it is not a standalone goal of projects in watersheds. Greater emphasis on
stormwater and flood mitigation would benefit not only water quality but also environmental
and economic integrity throughout the Raritan region.
Professional Education
Problem Statement
“Creating a New Mindset” -- The concept of “Green/Sustainable Design” is widely used in
today’s media. The term, however, means different things to different people. The
conventional definition is that Sustainable Design embraces a blend of objectives including: 1)
economic feasibility, 2) social acceptability and 3) environmental soundness.
Proposed Solutions
68 | P a g e
Our old, and thus standard, stormwater management concepts of “collect-detain-release”,
which still applicable, can be augmented with newer concepts gleaned from Sustainable
thought. LEED credit toward Stormwater Design offers a good summary as to approach and
implementation of such concepts. If a project is being constructed on a largely undeveloped
site, the goal is to preserve stormwater flows and design the project to respond to the natural
soil conditions, habitat and rainfall characteristics. If a project is a redevelopment of a
previously developed site, the goal is to improve stormwater management in a way that
restores the natural functions of the site to the maximum extent possible.
With the recent legislation requiring continuing education for Professional Engineers, the entire
design/review community, including Architects, Engineers, Land Surveyors, Landscape
Architects, Planners and even Attorneys are now required to maintain continuing education
credits during their respective licensing periods. This affords a tremendous opportunity to
educate the entire professional design community as to the aspects of Sustainable design and
thus create a “new mindset”. Course topics may include, for example:
Regulations
Public Policy
Stormwater harvesting
Pervious paving material
Stream and floodplain restoration
High quality natural environments
Underground storage
Retention basin design and modeling
Best Management Practices
Green Roofs
Cluster development concepts
Sustainable design standards
The various professional societies; AIA, NJSPE, NJSME, etc. should all be fully aware of the
Sustainable movement and the public’s view and demand that Sustainable concepts be
implemented. Local Governments, Planning Boards and Environmental Commissions are much
more informed and aware Sustainable concepts. Sustainable New Jersey has made great
strides in educating the public. The professional societies can and should be equally active in
offering their memberships the course work and tools necessary to be leaders in the design of
sustainable projects.
Future Direction
Looking ahead, a new mind set is needed to incorporate green/blue infrastructure and design
into our stormwater and flood management projects. Having useful information readily
available to all professional groups and licensing agencies to incorporate into annual trainings
69 | P a g e
and continued education programs is critical at achieving this new mind set in the Raritan
region.
Public Official Education
Problem Statement
The general public and elected township officials must be educated on the issue of stormwater
and flood management and mitigation, but the issues and tools for improvement must be
framed differently than professionals who are either providing technical guidance on behalf of
townships or who are working for private developers.
The public sector is broken down into two subgroups: 1) the general public and 2) elected and
appointed township officials. Strategies that can be employed by homeowners are clearly
different than those that would be employed by elected township officials. A main problem is
reaching both groups and giving both the tools they need to easily employ certain mitigation
strategies.
Proposed Solutions
With an understanding of the audience, it is essential to outline some of the perceived
restrictions that must be incorporated into a public educational campaign. First, the
Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council does not have a dedicated robust funding source
identified that can offset individual presentations and events in the various townships that
would be necessary to spread the word quickly and effectively. As a result, the educational
effort should focus on minimal investments that can yield maximum effect.
There are a number of Federal, State, and regional sources of quality educational material, in
addition to technical information that will be forthcoming from other more technical
committees within the Sustainable Raritan River Engineering Council. An opportunity exists to
create two major products, a PowerPoint-style presentation and short video that could serve as
effective introductions into the issues of water quality, flooding, and habitat damage that are
becoming chronic issues in the Raritan River. The video and presentation can then follow up
with references to more technical training opportunities and reference material for the viewer.
The goal of these two products would be very focused, to create an interest and passion for the
issue in a general way and succinctly provide references for good, technical reference
information produced by others.
The intention, once both the video and presentation are developed, would be to distribute
them to local elected officials, local environmental advisory councils, and at local environmental
fairs. As discussed, it is not fiscally feasible to provide a live presentation at each of these
venues so investing in succinct, quality visual products is an efficient alternative to achieve the
objective.
70 | P a g e
Next steps include getting quotes from video production companies to produce the video and
developing the video content with the producer, based on guidance from the public education
committee and other technical committees. The PowerPoint –style presentation can be
generated by the public education committee to be a companion piece to the video. Once
produced, the video can be widely distributed easily with an introductory cover letter to the
township officials within the Raritan River watershed.
Another important point to be made is that in instances where municipalities are experiencing
issues with excess stormwater runoff, the NJ Stormwater Management rules allow municipal
governing bodies to implement more stringent control practices and project review criteria
than are expressed in the rule. Educating officials of the powers they have to manage
stormwater and contribute to flood management in their municipalities can be an important
tool and is information that can be included in educational videos and publications. Specific
sections should be dedicated to “You have the power to… ” ensure that elected officials are
aware of all of their options.
Future Direction
Water is one of earth’s most precious resources. It can also be one of its most destructive.
Often our elected officials and the general public only become engaged in water issues at times
of crisis when water has caused damage or its use by humans is threatened. It is critical to
ensure that education about water issues doesn’t wait until these times of crisis. In order to
accomplish that, the SRREC is proposing to develop succinct educational pieces, a short video
and a brief presentation, that will encapsulate the critical issues facing the watershed and
distribute them to municipalities for viewing. Our goal is to offer a cost-effective and impactful
vehicle to explain to community leaders and stakeholders what they should be focusing on and
pointing them to the resources to continue on their critical mission. Managing stormwater and
watersheds can often be reduced to a series of buzzwords; however the SRREC aims to provide
real information about green/blue infrastructure, including what that infrastructure can mean
for the Raritan River watershed and how its communities’ leaders can affect real change.
Conclusions
The recommendations put forth in this White Paper are intended to foster a dialogue among
key regional stakeholder and within the engineering, planning and public management
communities – and with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
The White Paper puts forth constructive ideas on how to address water quality and flood
impacts in the Raritan Region. Future water quality and flood mitigation will enhance the
economy of the region, saving money for taxpayers and reducing the expense of managing our
resources through better management. The approach needs to address the findings of this
White Paper concurrently: policy, regulations, funding, professional and public education all
need to be part of a functioning change to engineering and planning practices – change that will
71 | P a g e
improve our quality as professionals and add quality benefits to the Raritan River region – and
to the state of New Jersey.
Note: This document is intended to foster discussion and will be updated periodically to reflect
changes in state policies or regulations, and in current engineering practice.
Authors
Paul W. Ferriero, PE, PP, CME, LEED AP – Ferriero Engineering, Inc., Policy Committee Chair
Joseph J. Fleming, PE, PP – PS&S, Funding Committee Chair
Mark Gallagher, VP, Princeton Hydro, Regulation Committee Co-Chair
David J. Samuel, PE, CME Associates, Regulation Committee Co-Chair
Stanley J. Schrek, PE, AIA, PP, CME, LEED AP - Van Cleef Engineering Associates, Professional
Education Chair
Gregg Woodruff, PP, AICP, LEED-AP BD+C - Langan Engineering & Environmental Services,
Public Education Chair
Produced under the advisory editorship of
Dr. Christopher Obropta, Ph.D., PE - Rutgers Cooperative Extension, Water Resources Expert
Stacy A. Perrine, PP, AICP - E.J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy, Rutgers University
Dr. Judith A. Shaw, PhD, PP, AICP - E.J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy, Rutgers
University
Special thanks to the following people for their contributions
Cynthia Addonizio-Bianco, CFM, LEED AP BD+C – Tetra Tech
Jeromie P. Lange, PE, PP, CME, CFM, EXW, LEED® Green Associate, Maser Consulting, P.A.
Michael Roeder, SVP - T&M Associates
Christopher Roche - Langan Engineering & Environmental Services
Nicholas Tufaro, PP, LLA, RLA - Middlesex County Planning
Arnold Vernick, PE - Nova Engineering
72 | P a g e
Appendix D: Social Environmental and Political News Snapshots9
Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Morris Somerset Union
RARITAN RIVER TOWN SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL NEWS SNAPSHOTS 10,11
Alexandria
Bedminster NJSEA Presidents To Speak At March Luncheon (3/4/2012)
Learn about foraging edible plants in Bedminster (3/24/2012)
Tebow Eyes New Jersey Luxury Rental (3/29/2012)
Berkeley Heights
Berkeley Heights Achieves Sustainable Jersey® Silver-Level Certification (4/2/2012)
Update: Water Main Break Impacts 100 Berkeley Heights Residences (4/4/2012)
Bernards N.J. DOT to rebuild bridge linking Morris and Somerset counties (3/11/2012)
Bernardsville Programs on fly fishing at NJ Audubon in Bernardsville (3/23/2012)
Bethlehem
Bound Brook Tainted dirt in Bound Brook heading to Woodbridge (3/5/2012)
Branchburg Branchburg Township Health Department alerts residents of increase in Norovirus (3/14/2012)
Noveda Technologies Joins Edison Electric Institute (3/21/2012)
Bridgewater
Monitoring agency says EPA failed to share reports of Raritan River benzene contamination near American Cyanamid Superfund site in Bridgewater (2/13/2012)
EPA considers $200M fix for polluted American Cyanamid property (2/16/2012)
Annual Middle Earth 'Run from Winter' 10K (2/20/2012)
Historic house in Bridgewater could be destroyed as part of a deal to preserve surrounding acreage (2/24/2012)
Pfizer endorses Cyanamid remediation plan (2/28/2012)
Latest Plan to Seal Off Superfund Site Divides Community (3/9/2012)
Environmentalists slam EPA plan for Bridgewater Superfund site (3/5/2012)
Public Reaction Mixed on American Cyanamid Project (3/9/2012)
Welcome Spring With Weekly Walks at Duke Island Park (3/13/2012)
EPA extends public comment period on American Cyanamid clean-up
9 Storied from December 16, 2011-May 2012
10 With assistance from Lizzie Browder, MCRP 2013
11 Stories found using Google Alerts application and Google Search Engine using search terms: Raritan River,
Raritan River & Flooding/Storm water, Raritan River & Mitigation.
73 | P a g e
proposal (3/9/2012)
Letter: EPA plan for Bridgewater Superfund site a bad move for Raritan River, central N.J. (3/30/2012)
Califon Califon OK's 10% budget decrease; Hoffman property, community garden also discussed (4/5/2012)
Carteret Company proposes soil recycling to cap vacant tract in Carteret (3/18/2012)
Chester Borough
Chester Township
Time running out for Highlands boss in Chester Township (3/15/2012)
Troubled times for Highlands Council, director fired and deputy resigns (3/16/2012)
After ousting director, N.J. Highlands Council searches for a new one (3/22/2012)
Brush Fire Conditions Spark Concerns (3/29/2012)
Clinton Township
Funding available for area farmers (3/5/2012)
Construction project to close one block of Main Street in Clinton Monday morning, March 19 (3/15/2012)
Local director will pitch 'Small Town USA' TV show with film of Clinton (3/28/2012)
Cranbury
AmeriHealth New Jersey Named One of the Best Places to Work in New Jersey (2/23/2012)
SolarCity Opens Operations Center in New Jersey (2/23/2012)
Cranberry's Gourmet Cafe: A reason to exit at 8A (3/23/2012)
Cranford Cranford Library to host screening of 'Rescuing the River: The Raritan' (1/10/2012)
Delaware Delaware Township wants to buy vacant historic house near Bulls Island state park from the state for $1 (4/3/2012)
Dunellen Home-schooling demographics change, expand (2/15/2012)
East Amwell
Sole East Amwell representative to Hunterdon Central school board resigns, applications taken for seat (3/26/2012)
Freeholder candidate from Tewksbury among those endorsed by county Democrats (3/28/2012)
East Brunswick
Central NJ retail vacancy rate falls (3/26/2012)
Warm weather, improved economy bringing out homebuyers and sellers this spring (4/1/2012)
Relief from congestion due from Route 22 project (4/3/2012)
East Windsor SciPark Aims to Make New Jersey the New Silicon Valley
N.J. must stop swiping property tax relief from locals (3/13/2012)
Edison Officials say major study needed of Raritan River pollution (3/19/2012) Middlesex Water Company to Invest $3.3 Million Upgrading Water
Distribution Infrastructure in Edison Township (4/5/2012)
Englishtown Boro
74 | P a g e
Fanwood
Far Hills Garden Photography Workshop Planned (4/4/2012)
Flemington
Garden State GreenFest Was a Great Success (3/30/2012)
Morris second healthiest county in N.J. (4/4/2012)
Flemington agent among those honored with National Award (4/4/2012)
New Jersey trout fishing starts today amid environmental concerns about waterways (4/7/2012)
Franklin
Franklin Township weighs 20-year plan to add parks (3/18/2012)
Hiking: What you should know about the Franklin Lakes Nature Preserve (3/29/2012)
Route 287 - Easton Avenue interchange plan is subject of NJDOT meeting in Franklin Township (4/3/2012)
Winslow wildfires seen and smelled in Gloucester County (4/6/2012)
Freehold Borough Agreement could be near on artificial reefs (3/29/2012)
Freehold Township
Nonprofit Looks to Freehold Raceway to Save Open Space (3/22/2012)
Open Space Pace will shine spotlight on horse racing (4/4/2012)
Route 9 to be resurfaced (4/5/2012)
The Unnamed Bicycle Column: A Cultural Shift (4/6/2012)
Glen Gardner Gov. Christie announces partnership between substance abuse center, psychiatric hospital (3/22/2012)
Green Brook
Hampton New Jersey Department of Traffic announces traffic shift in Hampton Borough (3/29/2012)
High Bridge
Oil leak contained in South Branch Raritan River (1/31/2012)
Booms set up to determine source of second spill in Raritan River's South Branch in High Bridge (2/10/2012)
'Everything back to normal' in High Bridge section of South Branch Raritan River; source of leak never identified (2/20/2012)
Highland Park Residents vowing to make Highland Park more energy-friendly (3/21/2012) A sparkling debut: Jersey Moves! festival puts dance in the spotlight
(3/22/2012)
Hightstown Pair sues Hightstown Borough, claims park lacks access for disabled (3/12/2012)
Hillsborough Left-Turn Exit Removed From Green Village Plan (3/2/2012)
Hopewell Boro
Hopewell Twp.
Jamesburg New Jersey American Water Awards Grants to 21 N.J. Volunteer Emergency Services Groups (3/28/2012)
Lawrence Only 3 N.J. towns will ask voters for tax hike above 2 percent cap (3/26/2012)
Lebanon Borough In Lebanon Twp., Gov. Christie visits Freedom House, which will help homeless veterans at new program coming to Hagedorn (3/21/2012)
75 | P a g e
Fire Warning issued for New Jersey; brush fire reported along Route 78 in Lebanon (4/4/2012)
Lebanon Township Hurricane Irene flood victims in Lebanon Township ask for officials' help (3/22/2012)
Manalapan
Manville
Manville targets flood-prone homes for buyouts (2/5/2012) Army Corps of Engineers to report on Raritan and Millville River flooding
(2/14/2012) Army Corps of Engineers get $50,000 to study Raritan-Millville River basin
flooding (2/16/2012) MANVILLE: Flooding solutions -- big and small -- are wanted River basins
commission hears update of study by Army Corps of Engineers (4/4/2012)
Marlboro Menendez deplores string of anti-Semitic attacks (2/1/2012)
Mendham Borough
Mendham Township Land in Chester Twp., Mendham Twp. to become nature preserve (4/5/2012)
Metuchen
Middlesex Borough
Millstone Millstone students pop cap on creative recycling (4/5/2012)
Milltown
Mine Hill
Monroe
How N.J. towns' countless tax appeal settlements are costing the state billions (3/28/2012)
Gloucester County seeing smoke from forest fires along the Atlantic City Expressway (4/6/2012)
Montgomery Trenton-Mercer, Princeton to share $1.3M for airport improvements (3/30/2012)
Mount Arlington N.J. DEP to take over Lake Hopatcong weed harvest (3/18/2012)
Mount Olive Frustrated Flanders homeowners await new bridge to town (1/29/2012)
Mountainside Latest Union County Means Business Networking Meeting Focuses on Small Business Funding (4/4/2012)
New Brunswick
The VUE Grand Opens to the Public with Luxury Condominium and Rental Residences (1/24/2012)
Glimpse of History: A crossing spot that spans centuries (2/12/2012) Heavyweight Rowers Brave Elements and Rutgers to Sweep Collins Cup
Regatta (3/25/2012) Financial Carrots Dangled to Spur Supermarket Development (4/3/2012)
New Providence
Trout fishing contest in New Providence (3/26/2012)
New Providence denied increased train service by NJ Transit (3/29/2012)
New Providence library spent $23,000 on Hurricane Irene repairs; renovation still incomplete (3/30/2012)
North Brunswick North Brunswick unveils plans to renovate troubled apartment complex (3/30/2012)
76 | P a g e
North Plainfield
Old Bridge Data Center Deals Showcase Strong NJ Tech Market (3/21/2012)
Peapack-Gladstone
Pennington
Perth Amboy Perth Amboy officials ask N.J. DOT to install fences on deadly bridge (2/26/2012)
‘Rescuing the River’ screening March 22 (3/15/2012)
Piscataway
Plainfield $1 million Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority payout to be probed
(3/12/2012) Plainfield (N.J.) Public Library (3/13/2012)
Plainsboro
Pohatcong Township Pohatcong Township rejects Highlands Council conformance in planning area (3/22/2012)
Princeton Borough The 'daunting' task of merging the Princetons (4/3/2012)
Princeton Township NJHA Develops Health Profiles for New Jersey's 21 Counties (3/15/2012)
Princeton Township Mayor: Municipal consolidation will pay off (3/21/2012)
Randolph Salem Street bridge over Route 10 to be closed for six months in Randolph (3/16/2012)
Raritan Boro
Raritan Township
Urbach Farm is now preserved in Raritan Township (2/6/2012)
Waterfowl find refuge at Assiscong Marsh during migration (2/22/2012)
Raritan zoning board to deliberate on unpopular Garden Solar application April 5 (3/2/2012)
Readington Readington Community Garden work days starting (3/16/2012)
Readington students focus on innovation and design (3/16/2012)
Rocky Hill Steamboat to make a 'SPLASH' along the Delaware River once again (4/2/2012)
Roosevelt Boro Roosevelt council addresses sewer issues (3/22/2012)
Roxbury
Sayreville
Scotch Plains
Somerville The Point plan moving forward, official says (1/19/2012)
County and Water Supply Authority offer rain barrel rebates (3/29/2012)
Project will provide rainy day savings (3/30/2012)
South Amboy Moving around town becomes EZ in Middlesex Co. (3/15/2012)
Mixed Signals for Builders (4/5/2012)
South Bound Brook Rain Barrel Workshop to be Held in South Bound Brook (4/3/2012)
South Brunswick
South Plainfield
South River
77 | P a g e
Spotswood Spotswood resident focuses on explosive history subject (3/29/2012)
Springfield Township Mayors Council reports promising developments for Rahway River Watershed Reservation (4/6/2012)
Summit Summit Council Adopts $500,000 Bond Ordinance to Fund Repairs to Broad Street Parking Garage; Firefighters, Recreation Personnel Cited (4/3/2012)
Tewksbury
Union (Hunterdon)
Warren
Department of Environmental Protection hosts 25th trout hatchery free open house (3/30/2012)
Conservation Reserve Program sign-up deadline approaching (4/2/2012)
Farm Service Agency offers farm loans for socially disadvantaged groups (4/7/2012)
Washington (Morris) Locally grown food, sustainable lifestyles promoted by Long Valley scientist (4/2/2012)
Robbinsville
Watchung Gardeners of Watchung Hills Sponsor Landscape Architecture Program (3/26/2012)
West Amwell Even Dairy Farming Has a 1 Percent (3/6/2012)
West Windsor West Windsor sets a summer opening for restored farmstead (3/20/2012)
Woodbridge Bound Brook's Contaminated Soil is Coming to Keasbey (3/8/2012)
RARITAN RIVER COUNTY
SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL NEWS SNAPSHOTS
Hunterdon Hunterdon County recruits volunteers for Community Emergency Response Team (3/23/2012)
Restaurant dining to benefit Raritan Headwaters Association (3/27/2012)
New Jersey expands Jersey Grown program (3/27/2012)
Hunterdon Democrats and Republicans file to run for freeholder, council, mayor, other posts (4/4/2012)
Mercer Delaware & Raritan Canal walk set for April 7 (3/28/2012)
Mild winter left Mercer County towns with piles of salt and cash (3/28/2012)
Middlesex Middlesex Water Company Replaces Century Old Water Main in $5.3 Million Infrastructure Investment (12/24/2011)
Local towns challenge water rate hike proposal: Middlesex Water seeks to increase rates by 17.5% (3/21/2012)
Middlesex County’s Community Notification System Helps Keep Residents Informed (3/21/2012)
Middlesex Water Company Transmission Main Project Earns Honors
78 | P a g e
from American Council of Engineering Companies (3/26/2012)
County Ranks Sixth Healthwise in NJ (4/5/2012)
Shows and Events-Middlesex Fire Academy Boat Show (4/5/2012)
Monmouth Striped bass season open in rivers, bays (3/1/2012)
Supporters fight to save Sandy Hook marine lab (3/18/2012)
Freda's Saltwater Report (3/29/2012)
Freda: Winter flounder abundant (3/30/2012)
Morris Sitting pretty on this popular bicycle tour (12/22/2011)
Somerset DEP says Raritan River dam removal in Somerset County will kick start fish spawning (1/31/2012)
With 9 pedestrian deaths over 3 years, Route 22 ranks among N.J.'s most dangerous roads (3/13/2012)
Celebrate Earth Day, preserve watershed by dining out in Somerset Hills April 19 (4/6/2012)
Union Fifteen flood-prone homes in Lincoln Park qualify for buyouts (1/23/2012)
Mayors along Raritan River set flood-control priorities (1/29/2012)
N.J. residents baffled over strange glow in sky (3/25/2012)
Recycle Unwanted Electronic Equipment in New Providence, March 31 (3/26/2012)
RARITAN RIVER Region
SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL NEWS SNAPSHOTS
NJ-NY Metropolitan Area
Upper Saddle River Council approves resident's application for flood relief (12/21/2011)
EPA unveils new mercury emission standards, NJ likely to benefit greatly (12/21/2011)
Plan for logging in N.J. spurs heated debate (1/3/2012)
Editorial: N.J. property tax control efforts off to good start (1/17/2012)
New Jersey American Water Installing Two New Solar Fields at its Facilities (2/8/2012)
Fighting fires with fire (3/12/2012)
Water Pipe Study: United States Needs $1 Trillion For Drinking Water Lines Over Next 25 Years (3/13/2012)
Study: Extreme flooding risk at N.J. coast has doubled (3/15/2012)
N.J. Highlands Council votes to oust director at emotional session (3/16/2012)
The Fishing Line: Politics and Fishing, Complicated (3/22/2012)
Towns look to accelerate projects after Christie threat to affordable housing funds (3/25/2012)
79 | P a g e
Stream clean-up in Hunterdon, Morris and Somerset counties (3/27/2012)
Taking Steps Toward a Cleaner Raritan River (3/28/2012)
NYT: Flooding Risk Rises Statewide (3/29/2012)
EPA details Superfund site cleanup (3/29/2012)
USA: EPA Conducts Five-Year Review of Hudson River Superfund Site (3/29/2012)
Spring Fishing off to a Good Start (3/29/2012)
Anglers prep for start of spring trout season (3/31/2012)
Bluefish showing as stripers continue biting (3/31/2012)
Unseasonably pleasant month ties for warmest March on N.J. record (4/1/2012)
New Jersey American Water to Resume Treating Water with Chlorine (4/2/2012)
Stripers turn on in the ocean (4/3/2012)
Fine Print: New Jersey, Maybe Not So Green (4/3/2012)
Complete Streets program encourages walkers, cyclists (4/4/2012)
State Forest Fire Service issues statewide fire danger alert and campfire restrictions (4/4/2012)
Huge Rooftop Farm Is Set for Brooklyn (4/5/2012)
Fitch Rates NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust's $103.6MM Environmental Infrastructure Bonds 'AAA' (4/5/2012)
Diver shares photos of marine creatures found in NJ waters (4/5/2012)
On the Waterfront-NYT Op-ed (4/6/2012)
Be prepared for trout on Opening Day (4/6/2012)
80 | P a g e
Appendix E: Tracking Local News Articles
Google Search: To do a preliminary Internet search on a topic of interest, you can use Google Search and its Advanced Search settings to craft a search query.
1. Go to https://www.google.com 2. In the search bar, enter your topic of interest i.e. Raritan River
3. Google will populate basic search results. 4. Next, you can set Advanced Search Settings to refine the results by clicking the button that looks
like a wagon wheel, located in the top right hand corner of the page. This button has links to:
Search Settings: set language preferences, increase the safety of search results or block unwanted sites.
Advanced Search: limit search results by editing search terms, adding Boolean phrases (and, or, not) and narrowing timeframes.
Web History: personalize searches based on web history.
Search Help: very helpful page, utilize if these instructions are insufficient for your search needs.
5. Click on Advanced Search
The top half of the page “Find pages with…” is where you can modify/add search terms
The second half of the page “Then narrow results by…” allows you to specify the timeframe in the “Last Update” box as:
o Anytime o Past 24 hours
81 | P a g e
o Past week o Past month o Past year
Choose the option based on how timely you desire the search results to be.
6. Hit Advanced Search to view your new results pages.
7. You can further refine search results by selecting the types of information you would like. To do this look at the left hand side of the page, which yields the following options:
Everything: blogs, websites, news, photos, everything you could want---sometimes a bit overwhelming
Images: photos of the search terms you’ve entered
Maps: links to Google maps of the search terms you’ve entered
Videos: videos related to your search
News: articles, stories, reports about your search from news sources; also allows you to look at blogs related to your topic (link to blogs located in the middle of the left hand sidebar)
Shopping: anything you can buy related to your search terms
More: many, many more options—explore at your own risk! Google Alerts: To receive the latest information about a topic of interest, you can set up Google Alerts, which will send you an email about new information relevant to search queries you construct. Also see the PowerPoint: Google Alerts Quick Guide.
1. Go to http://www.google.com/alerts 2. Enter you Search Query
You can enter a single term such as “Raritan River”
A phrase i.e. “Raritan River Flooding
Or a Boolean search using the words or, and, not i.e. “Raritan River and Bound Brook and Flooding or Storm water”
3. Choose the desired Result Type, options include:
Everything
News
Blogs
Video
Discussions
Books 4. Choose How Often you would like to receive alerts:
As it happens
Once a day
Once a week
5. Select How Many results:
82 | P a g e
Only the best results
All results
6. Enter Your Email
No need to have a Google Gmail account, you can send these alerts to any email address.
7. Click Create Alert, and give yourself a pat on the back!
8. You can edit or delete these alerts anytime by clicking Manage Your Alerts.
83 | P a g e
Appendix F: Municipal Mitigation Survey and Results
We ask your assistance pre-testing this pilot survey. Your participation is voluntary.
Feel free to add comments anywhere along the way to help us make this a more useful survey.
Your town: ________________________________
Your position: Elected Official Engineer Planner OEM
Floodplain Manager Public Works Other: ______________________
1. Overall, how would you rate your town as a place to live:
Excellent Good Fair Poor
2. Do you think the environment in your town will be better or worse in the next 25 years?
Better Same Worse Don’t Know No Comment
3. How long have you lived in this town?
less than 1 year
2-5 years
6-10 years
10-25 years
Over 25 years
All my life
4. What is the cause of the flooding in your neighborhood? Rank with one of the following choices:
1 = most serious cause 2 = major cause 3 = minor cause 4 = not a cause
My lawn and drainage on my property
My neighbors drainage
Local stormwater treatment systems
Development in neighboring towns
Excessive rain ( amount)
Intensity of rain (time)
Changes in global climate
Other ____________________________________________
84 | P a g e
5. What is flooding like in your town? (choose one)
Light: some streets flooded, but no homes damaged
Nuisance: Some people with water in their basements, but not a lot of water
Heavy: Lots of water and lots of people getting water in their first floor
Torrential: ripped out streambanks, brought down trees, moved property
Critical and Hazardous: homes came off their foundations
Other: __________________________________________________
6. Which of the following mitigation strategies do you think apply in your community
(L – low, M – medium, H – high)
L M H Improved maintenance of stormwater systems
L M H Installation of dry-wells and cisterns to capture and slowly release water
L M H Community wide stormwater best management practices
L M H Elevation of homes and elimination of basements
L M H Buying out flood prone homes
7. How important are the following potential benefits to your community of reduced flooding?
1 = Single most important benefit 2 = Important 3 = Slightly important 4 = not important
___ Reduction of costs absorbed by the municipal budget
___ Reduction of nuisance flooding across your community
___ Potential attraction of new business because you are a ‘green’ community
___ Increased ratable value to existing homes when flood-prone areas are protected.
8. Which mitigation strategies are you familiar with?
1 = very familiar 2 = somewhat familiar 3 = not familiar
___ rain barrels ___ bio-retention basins ___ rain gardens ___ constructed wetlands ___ cisterns ___ extended detention basins ___ dry wells ___ reconnecting floodplains ___ bioswales ___ raising bridges ___ stream restoration ___ levees/floodwalls
9. What information do you want about mitigation options in order to better inform your decisions on flood planning/maintenance?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
85 | P a g e
10. How could we communicate more effectively and get better input on implementing mitigation strategies in your community?
1 = best 2 = good 3 = fair 4 = not an approach that would work here
feel free to add comments
Personal meetings with public officials and local leaders
Workshops and videos on best management practices for our public works team
Workshops for our emergency response volunteers
Workshops for municipal officials
Presentation to a community meeting
Web-based videos
Media stories
Other: ______________________________________
11. If you checked training workshops above, how close to your town do they need to be?
Within our town
Within 10 miles
Within 25 miles
New Brunswick
12. How willing are you to get involved in implementing more mitigation in your town?
Willing to serve on a working group that meets once a month
Willing to serve on a working group that meets 3-4 times a year
Willing to serve on a working group that meets twice a month
Willing to attend trainings on beneficial practices
Willing to organize this – we need it!
Comments:
THANK YOU!
86 | P a g e
Survey Results
We ask your assistance pre-testing this pilot survey. Your participation is voluntary.
Feel free to add comments anywhere along the way to help us make this a more useful survey.
Affiliation
Elected 5
Engineer 4
Planner 2
OEM 4
FPM 1
PW
Lans Arch 1
other 5
Overall, how would you rate your town as a place to live?
All said their town was excellent or good place to live except for Manville - fair to poor
Do you think the environment in your town will be better or worse in the next 25 years?
Status of env in town in next 25 years
better 7
same 2
worse 7
don’t know 1
How long have you lived in this town?
# yrs lived in town
>1
2 to 5 1
6 to 10 3
10 to 25 2
over 25 7
all my life 5
87 | P a g e
What is the cause of the flooding in your neighborhood?
1 = most serious cause 2 = major cause 3 = minor cause 4 = not a cause
flooding causes # of top
votes
lawn and drainage on property 0
neighbors drainage 0
local storm water management system 3
dev in neighboring town 5
excessive rain amounts 8
intensity of rain (time) 7
global climate 1
other:
failure of Island Farm Weir Green Brook plan, impervious coverages, water debris, smaller stream issues
1
Natural and construction debris 2
Construction in 20s on top of old streambed 1
What is flooding like in your town? (Choose one)
What is flooding like in your town? # of top
votes
light 3
nuisance 4
heavy 3
torrential 2
critical/hazardous 6
Other: nuisance to heavy 2
Which of the following mitigation strategies do you think apply in your community?
(L – low, M – medium, H – high)
mitigation strategies for your community L M H
Improve stormwater systems 3 9 7
dry wells 7 7 3
Community -wide Best Management Practices (BMPs) 6 5 7
elevation & no basement 7 7 4
88 | P a g e
How important are the following potential benefits to your community of reduced flooding?
1 = Single most important benefit 2 = Important 3 = Slightly important 4 = not important
importance of benefits to community most
imp imp slightly not imp
reduction of costs absorbed by local budget 7 5 2 2
reduction of nuisance flooding 6 6 2 1
attraction of new "green" business 3 2 5 4
increased ratables 5 4 3 3
Which mitigation strategies are you familiar with?
1 = very familiar 2 = somewhat familiar 3 = not familiar
Mitigation strategies very fam somewhat no
rain barrels
11 6 rain gardens
9 7
cisterns
4 8 5
dry wells
9 8 3
bioswales
5 6 6
stream restoration
10 7 1
bio retention basins
7 4 5
constructed wetlands
5 9 2
extended detention basins 5 6 5
reconnecting floodplains 3 7 8
raising bridges
9 3 6
levees/floodwalls
8 7 3
What information do you want about mitigation options in order to better inform your decisions on flood planning/maintenance?
funding, one asked how to implement 6 Model projects 1 How to implement 1 Understanding of flow rates 1
89 | P a g e
How could we communicate more effectively and get better input on implementing mitigation strategies in your community?
1 = best 2 = good 3 = fair 4 = not an approach that would work here ( feel free to add comments)
communication mechanism best good fair no
personal meeting 9 1 1
workshops and videos for PW 7 3 2 1
workshops for OEM 6 7 1
workshops for municipal leaders 7 6 1
presentation to community 6 6 2
web based videos 1 5 5 2
media stories 3 2 2
If you checked training workshops above, how close to your town do they need to be?
travel to workshops in town 7
10 miles 5
25 miles 2
New Brunswick 2
How willing are you to get involved in implementing more mitigation in your town?
willingness to implement more mitigation in your town
working group once/month 5
group 3-4 times a year 3
group twice a month 1
training on BMPs 6
willing to organize 1
comment - will provide a venue 1
90 | P a g e
Appendix G: Thresholds Data
Following are the underlying data used to generate the estimated payout threshold
and damage estimates for the four municipalities analyzed in Section 1 of the text. The
damage coefficient is the estimated dollar damages per cubic foot of streamflow over the
estimated threshold. Graphs compare the model results to actual payout levels.
Bound Brook
Damage Threshold: 29,185 cu. ft. per sec.
Damage Coefficient: $528.72 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)
Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted
1975 27,100 $7,297 $0 1993 20,000 $0 $0 1976 20,200 $0 $0 1994 22,900 $0 $0 1977 26,300 $0 $0 1995 11,200 $1,410 $0 1978 30,000 $8,241 $430,756 1996 32,700 $2,599,154 $1,858,309 1979 34,600 $302,870 $2,862,883 1997 40,100 $0 $5,770,860 1980 25,300 $0 $0 1998 14,100 $0 $0 1981 18,200 $0 $0 1999 82,900 $23,822,964 $28,400,210 1982 22,900 $0 $0 2000 12,600 $10,383 0 1983 28,100 $8,392 $0 2001 13,600 $17,252 0 1984 28,600 $0 $0 2002 10,600 $46,318 $0 1985 14,100 $0 $0 2003 16,700 $77,097 $0 1986 20,100 $0 $0 2004 23,100 $0 $0 1987 21,100 $7,547 $0 2005 24,700 $27,666 $0 1988 12,600 $0 $0 2006 25,100 $0 $0 1989 23,500 $0 0 2007 56,900 $24,655,293 $14,653,409 1990 17,900 $0 $0 2008 23,200 $17,274 $0 1991 11,400 $45,215 $0 2009 24,100 $0 $0 1992 15,000 $0 $0 2010 45,900 $11,425,324 $8,837,454
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
Payo
uts
Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)
Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Bound Brook, 1975-2010
Actual
Predicted
91 | P a g e
Branchburg
Damage Threshold: 17,748 cu. ft. per sec.
Damage Coefficient: $134.53 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)
Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted
1975 10,900 $0 0 1993 7,590 $0 $0 1976 6,020 $0 0 1994 10,000 $3,105 $0 1977 9,730 $0 0 1995 5,070 $0 $0 1978 9,730 $1,025 $0 1996 23,700 $1,774,621 $800,695 1979 15,100 $153,145 $0 1997 29,100 $0 $1,527,157 1980 11,600 $0 $0 1998 5,110 $0 $0 1981 11,400 $0 $0 1999 29,000 $3,448,032 $1,513,704 1982 14,500 $0 $0 2000 6,000 $0 $0 1983 14,200 $3,556 $0 2001 4,300 $0 $0 1984 27,900 $564,383 $1,365,721 2002 7,730 $0 $0 1985 9,750 $0 $0 2003 4,530 $0 $0 1986 9,030 $0 $0 2004 14,600 $15,321 $0 1987 9,310 $0 $0 2005 9,690 $19,224 $0 1988 7,050 $0 $0 2006 11,200 $0 $0 1989 8,200 $0 $0 2007 19,500 $53,902 $235,669 1990 9,390 $0 $0 2008 12,900 $8,326 $0 1991 5,590 $0 $0 2009 10,300 $0 $0 1992 6,680 $0 $0 2010 22,200 $200,917 $598,900
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
Payo
uts
Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)
Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Branchburg, 1975-2010
Actual
Predicted
92 | P a g e
Manville
Damage Threshold: 20,217 cu. ft. per sec.
Damage Coefficient: $281.53 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)
Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted
1975 17,200 $0 0 1993 14,500 $0 $0 1976 13,400 $0 0 1994 14,900 $0 $0 1977 18,300 $3,681 0 1995 8,010 $0 $0 1978 19,400 $7,837 $0 1996 24,300 $2,189,581 $1,149,372 1979 23,000 $156,478 $783,380 1997 32,000 $0 $3,317,171 1980 17,700 $0 $0 1998 10,900 $0 $0 1981 17,900 $0 $0 1999 77,600 $16,039,910 $16,155,046 1982 17,000 $5,232 $0 2000 6,660 $0 $0 1983 22,800 $1,114 $727,073 2001 12,000 $0 $0 1984 27,300 $7,546 $1,993,969 2002 10,600 $0 $0 1985 11,500 $0 $0 2003 11,000 $0 $0 1986 15,800 $0 $0 2004 19,100 $0 $0 1987 17,600 $0 $0 2005 19,300 $0 $0 1988 10,900 $0 $0 2006 19,200 $0 $0 1989 16,200 $0 $0 2007 30,400 $9,113,389 $2,866,719 1990 14,400 $0 $0 2008 19,700 $0 $0 1991 8,730 $0 $0 2009 15,800 $0 $0 1992 12,300 $0 $0 2010 28,900 $1,929,122 $2,444,420
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
Payo
uts
Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)
Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Manville, 1975-2010
Actual
Predicted
93 | P a g e
Middlesex
Damage Threshold: 26,022 cu. ft. per sec.
Damage Coefficient: $97.62 Payouts (2011 $) Payouts (2011 $)
Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted Year Peak Flow Actual Predicted
1975 27,100 $0 105,187 1993 20,000 $0 $0 1976 20,200 $0 0 1994 22,900 $9,568 $0 1977 26,300 $3,066 27,095 1995 11,200 $0 $0 1978 30,000 $802 $388,271 1996 32,700 $2,047,519 $651,831 1979 34,600 $38,237 $837,300 1997 40,100 $21,685 $1,374,183 1980 25,300 $24,721 $0 1998 14,100 $0 $0 1981 18,200 $0 $0 1999 82,900 $5,662,446 $5,552,108 1982 22,900 $0 $0 2000 12,600 $0 $0 1983 28,100 $0 $202,802 2001 13,600 $668 $0 1984 28,600 $141,370 $251,610 2002 10,600 $0 $0 1985 14,100 $0 $0 2003 16,700 $0 $0 1986 20,100 $0 $0 2004 23,100 $16,458 $0 1987 21,100 $0 $0 2005 24,700 $1,388 $0 1988 12,600 $0 $0 2006 25,100 $3,055 $0 1989 23,500 $395 $0 2007 56,900 $1,499,626 $3,014,116 1990 17,900 $0 $0 2008 23,200 $0 $0 1991 11,400 $0 $0 2009 24,100 $0 $0 1992 15,000 $64,228 $0 2010 45,900 $4,930,102 $1,940,350
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
Payo
uts
Streamflow (cu. ft. per sec.)
Actual vs. Predicted Payouts by Streamflow Level Middlesex, 1975-2010
Actual
Predicted